Slashdot Mirror


Time Warner To Comply With Wiretap Law

rekkanoryo writes "Time Warner Cable is taking steps to comply with the Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Act, which requires telecommunications providers 'to help police conduct electronic surveilance.' Note that broadband providers are not yet required to comply with the law, but the FBI has stated its desire to force broadband providers under the law's jurisdiction. Invasion of privacy anyone?"

452 comments

  1. Just another step closer by Sir+Haxalot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    to 1984.

    --
    I have over 70 freaks, do you?
    1. Re:Just another step closer by DR+SoB · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Agreed. 2004 = 1984 + 20

      To all those who doubted Big Brother is watching. Seriously, they have been doing this for YEARS now they just want to justify it.

      "The truth will set you free"

      --
      Mod +5 Drunk
    2. Re:Just another step closer by criscooil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yeah.
      What ever happened to "... the land of the free, and the home of the brave" ? Sure looks good on a bumper sticker, but are we gonna have to learn to chuckle when we see that?

      --

      My life is an open book ... up to a point.

    3. Re:Just another step closer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit. Or perhaps beyond 1984. These neocon goons scare me. From time to time people at /. call for a 'revolution' in the US. I've discounted this as rhetoric up to now. But only up to now.

    4. Re:Just another step closer by Tassach · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Everything transmitted over any public network (be it the telephone system or the internet) is insecure. This is not news. Let big brother monitor the internet and the phone system to his heart's content; anyone who cares about security already uses encryption.

      I'm all for *more* monitoring -- I want it so widespread that everyone knows that every phone call they make and every email they send *will* be monitored by big brother at some point. The more awareness people have about how easily the government can listen in on their private conversations, the more they will demand that transparent encryption be built in to their phones and email programs. Wholesale wiretapping will make encryption mainstream.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    5. Re:Just another step closer by Shalda · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I doubt it. It's not a big effort for an ISP or the Feds to record all packets being sent from a given IP end point. And since computer traffic is a lot easier to encrypt then phone traffic, if you're paranoid, it's easy to hide what you're doing. Use good crypto and what's the government know? that you sent and recieved packets from a select number of hosts.

    6. Re:Just another step closer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... Actually the government has AEK(additional encryption keys) for every commercial encryption software stronger that 128 bit. It is required when you make excryption software that you include these backdoor keys, and then promptly turned over to the FBI. So really, unless you want to write some encryption algorithms yourself, we are all screwed.

      -root.0

    7. Re:Just another step closer by FLEB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...and the resultant inability to wiretap will make encryption illegal.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    8. Re:Just another step closer by nodialtone · · Score: 0

      This FBI request is total blantant disregard and violation of all the privacy laws ever put on the books.

    9. Re:Just another step closer by RKBA · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "... the land of the free, and the home of the brave"

      Didn't you mean "... the land of the fee, and the home of the [tax] slave"?

    10. Re:Just another step closer by freezerboy · · Score: 1

      And just who is a threat to my freedoms? Al-Queda? Nope, not Al-Queda, but perhaps the FBI.

    11. Re:Just another step closer by kramer2718 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're right that encryption is an option, but as a consumer, I don't want to pay for the FBI's backdoors. Furthermore, this request will have NO effect on terrorists (who are the supposed target). Terrorists already use encryption. It's more likely to make J. Edgar Hoover style tricks easier.

      It MIGHT help nab criminals who are well less organized than terrorists, but is that really reason enough to re-engineer our routers?

    12. Re:Just another step closer by spongman · · Score: 1

      and when they fail to wiretap your neurons...

    13. Re:Just another step closer by spongman · · Score: 1
      Surely not:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
      Ha!
    14. Re:Just another step closer by spongman · · Score: 1
      Everything transmitted over any public network (be it the telephone system or the internet) is insecure.
      It's not a public network, it's not funded by the government. I pay a private enterprise for communication with my peers be it by phone or by internet.
    15. Re:Just another step closer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you rather mean the CIA? They're the ones who keep turning out to have trained and put in power dictators.

    16. Re:Just another step closer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. So goes your privacy. If the people don't control the individual bites that the government and big business take, soon, there will be no privacy to worry about. Time Warner and others are caving into the threat of the FBI's wish list. Let's not fight it, let's just go along with it. What's next? Maybe it will be a requirement to have video and audio monitors in every household. After all, someone "may" say something that Big Brother would classify as a threat. I'm sure terrorists use mail too. Would the people just cave in if the FBI decided to pass a law that requires all mail be read and inspected too? Unfortunately, we have seen that the threat is quite real. But, at the same time, the American people must realize the government and big business are exploiting the "fear of terror" to justify new laws and rules that can reach as far as possible into our privacy and ultimately, most probalbly, into our wallets. After all, our wallets are what keep our government strong and in control of us.

  2. Canadian laws by Lordofohio · · Score: 5, Funny


    That's funny, on my other tabbed paged right now I'm reading about the formalities of moving to Canada :-)

    1. Re:Canadian laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It too cold up there, move to mexico.

    2. Re:Canadian laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great! I'll join you. Want to start up an IT business up there? ;)

    3. Re:Canadian laws by Nova1313 · · Score: 1

      lately that seems like a wonderful solution to alot of the stuff going on here... Got a link? ^^

      --
      There exists some positive integer N that you are the Nth person to read this signature.
    4. Re:Canadian laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Canada that's working on abolishing anonymity on the net? That Canada?

    5. Re:Canadian laws by Orgazmus · · Score: 1

      After this, even old norway looks good..

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    6. Re:Canadian laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.gc.ca

    7. Re:Canadian laws by Fishead · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Take a job in construction.

      The housing market is so hot right now that we don't have enough labourers to build houses fast enough so we are outsourcing. I just read in the paper the other day that Ottawa is allowing Canadian companies to hire Americans.

      Best thing about being in Canada is that our politicians are all crooked (sponsorship scandal?) but at least we are not scared of them.

      Rule #1 if you want to work in Canada?

      Roof rhymes with Goof

    8. Re:Canadian laws by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Informative

      How is this insightful? Sure, the Canadian Recording Industry would love that, but there's no indication that the government is going to allow it (and if past behaviour is an indicator, the GC will probably just tell 'em to piss off), and all the ISPs in Canada, save one, are rejecting any attempts to open their records.

    9. Re:Canadian laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be off to Costa Rica if Dubya gets another term.

    10. Re:Canadian laws by thestarz · · Score: 1

      After this most places look good.

      --

      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    11. Re:Canadian laws by Frymaster · · Score: 2, Interesting
      move to canada? sure.

      when the us had strict crypto laws, the openbsd team made canada their home. so moving to a "warmer" legal climate has worked in the past.

      except... since both canada and the united states are members of the wto and signatories to the ftaa a more "relaxed" set of privacy laws in one country could be construed as an unfair subsidy and taken up with either of the two trade organizations dispute resolution bodies.

    12. Re:Canadian laws by ERJ · · Score: 1

      I believe the poster was referring to this:

      End of Online Anonymity in Canada?

    13. Re:Canadian laws by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Bah, that was a non-article. See this post and this article.

    14. Re:Canadian laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The Canada that's working on abolishing anonymity on the net? That Canada?

      Hey retard, have you read any of the stories on this topic? Of course not, cuz you are a tool, and no-one on /. reads anything. Here are the details for you, the "anonymity" that you are refering to, is regarding filesharing, and whether or not ISP's have to id their users (ever hear about anything like that in the US?). The Canadian version of RIAA is looking to file a bunch of suits on a bunch of people just like what happened long ago in the US (any of that sound familiar). In Canada, our laywers, and ISP's actually stood up and said "fuck you, our users are anonamous", something that your US ISP's just said "Oh sure, here are the names and addresses, plus a history of everything ever looked at". And so far, the legal system has yet to rule whether ISP's can be forced to release the info or not. My guess, is that without a department of homeland security to play the "Oh christ, I think Osama is downloading Koranic prayers from Kaza, we have to know who he is" card, that our courts will tell them to fuck off (yours didn't, remember, they handed over the info with barely a whimper). Especially since downloading is NOT A CRIME in Canada. To even get slightly looked at, you have to be an uploader. Apparently the legal argument is that just having a file available to upload, does not qualify as uploading (ie, having 10,000 files in your shared folder does not show that you upload), so unless the canadian version of RIAA can prove that you actually initiated the upload yourself (as opposed to someone requesting it from you), they can not prove a crime, and cannot request your identity.

      If you actually looked into any of the things that you have opinions on, you would probably be very shocked to find that Canada has much better (for the citizens, probably a total pain in the ass for the gov't) privacy laws than the US does. We are actually protected from our government prying into our private lives.

    15. Re:Canadian laws by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      How on earth could that be construed as an "unfair subsidy"? Honestly?

      Moreover, as the US's behaviour regarding soft wood and Canadian wheat has shown, these "dispute resolution bodies" have, apparently, no teeth, anyway, so who gives a damn?

    16. Re:Canadian laws by DR+SoB · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm a Canadian. Big Brother is here, watching. CSIS works hand-in-hand with the CIA.

      We now have anti-biker laws that go wayyyyy beyond what is happening in USA right now. Being part of a criminal organization here is harmful to your health! The CIA/DEA/FBI _ALL_ have offices in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, etc.

      If I could suggest a place to move it would be Holland, so far they are BY FAR the most Liberal, free country on earth. I'm not talking about drug laws either.

      --
      Mod +5 Drunk
    17. Re:Canadian laws by rcs1000 · · Score: 1

      Why is this pegged as informative?

      This is *not* the way WTO rules work. This is how conspiracy theorists think WTO rules work.

      It is not an unfair subsidy, and there is no way WTO rules could regard it as such. (Furthermore, you'd need to see the US lodge an official complaint... and I think they have other things on their mind right now. Like steel, outsourcing, and agricultre).

      --
      --- My dad's political betting
    18. Re:Canadian laws by saforrest · · Score: 1

      and all the ISPs in Canada, save one, are rejecting any attempts to open their records

      Sigh, good old Videotron.

    19. Re:Canadian laws by saforrest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm a Canadian. Big Brother is here, watching. CSIS works hand-in-hand with the CIA.

      As does the RCMP, apparently:

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/

      That said, we have only so much tolerance for Big Brother, and especially for the wishes of our southern brethren. CSIS may do the CIA's bidding, but when an issue is outed and has popular support, they will often back down.

      Plus, CSIS has a reputation for being bloody incompetent. It may be unjustified, but it's true.

    20. Re:Canadian laws by Kris2k · · Score: 1

      Are you really certain?

      During the days, working for a company that wanted to obtain a CLEC status, one of the prerequisites (if my memory serves me right), was to allow the RCMP to easily be able to wire-tap on-net and off-net calls.

      Aside the slower-economy, and the fact that you need to wear snow-shoes year-round, to get to work, it's a wise choice ;)

    21. Re:Canadian laws by mdielmann · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's kind of ironic. Before 9/11, I would have been interested in moving to the U.S.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    22. Re:Canadian laws by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Great! I'll join you. Want to start up an IT business up there? ;)"

      Interesting thought, however, make sure you have a plan to somehow get all your drives, and CDR's bought in the US and smuggled up there somehow to avoid all the 'piracy' tarrifs they have there...

      :-)

      Actually that would be interesting...could you get around the tarriff laws, by having a US based office...and you just 'moved office supplies' between offices in US and Canada?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    23. Re:Canadian laws by saforrest · · Score: 1

      Moreover, as the US's behaviour regarding soft wood and Canadian wheat has shown, these "dispute resolution bodies" have, apparently, no teeth, anyway, so who gives a damn?

      They do have some teeth, when the issues at hand are not ones that are politically sensitive for the current US administration. An example might be Canada's rules on favourable postage rates for Canadian content:

      Currently, 85 percent of all magazines available at Canadian newsstands are American. In an effort to protect its own magazines, Canada gave favorable postage rates to certain Canadian periodicals and introduced a tax law that gave an incentive to Canadian advertisers to place ads with domestic, instead of foreign, magazines.

      In 1997, the WTO ruled that Canada's measures were in violation of GATT. Canada has been forced to comply and has eliminated both the favorable postage rates for Canadian periodicals and the tax.

    24. Re:Canadian laws by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "I'll be off to Costa Rica if Dubya gets another term."

      But, you know...seriously...while no huge fan of Pres. Bush....from what I hear from Kerry...and the more I learn of him and his views. I don't really see him making ANY kind of difference over issues like this (privacy)...or most the others. I think both parties are so owned by big money obligations to corporate interests...that nothing will change.

      At this point...the only real difference I see is in who wants to raise my taxes...and even that isn't a sure thing on either side to bet on...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    25. Re:Canadian laws by jocknerd · · Score: 1

      Forget that, move to the Caymens. They seem to allow just about anything down there.

    26. Re:Canadian laws by Bull999999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And people in Europe thought that they were safe from US-like patent laws but look at what's happening in EU now. Many US laws have tendency to migrate to other countries so if you want privacy, take a stand and fight for your rights insteading of just fleeing.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    27. Re:Canadian laws by Frymaster · · Score: 2, Interesting
      How on earth could that be construed as an "unfair subsidy"? Honestly?

      as a tbt (technical barrier to trade). despite the wto's fluffy wording about not wanting to impose standards on member nations, the definition of tbt's is very loosely worded. the mitigating factor to this are a series of special case exceptions that deal with: human and animal health, the environment and a few other areas. i spent 20 minutes looking for anything on privacy as an escape from tbt action and came up with zilch. it may be there, but i doubt it.

      now, for this to happen, a nation would have to launch a complaint with the wto and go through the whole rigamarole. it's not like the wto keeps it's own watch dog. however, given the united states' recent, uh, "committment to domestic security" i suspect that this issue is more likely to find itself at the top of the pile than the bottom.

      lastly, the wto likes for complaining nations to be able to present a dollar value for damages. but it is not required. the entire dispute procedure can be followed through without the complaining nation ever formally stating how much money was lost due to a tbt.

      Moreover, as the US's behaviour regarding soft wood and Canadian wheat has shown, these "dispute resolution bodies" have, apparently, no teeth, anyway, so who gives a damn?

      no teeth? if you're the united states, maybe. if you're a smaller nation you often can't afford economically to piss off the big players. nobody wants to give the ustr an excuse to retalliate. and don't forget that the dsb can get member nations to impose sanctions. technically these sanctions do not even need to be limited the same sector as the disagreement.

    28. Re:Canadian laws by ranolen · · Score: 1
      Have you met the american gov't??? Ever since 9/11 they have been taking away the privacy of everyone in the name of security!!! In the so called land of the free, you are no longer free with the gov't watching your every move, because you may be a terrorist.

      So I wouldn't be slagging the Canadian gov't.

    29. Re:Canadian laws by Unregistered · · Score: 3, Funny

      If I could suggest a place to move it would be Holland, so far they are BY FAR the most Liberal, free country on earth. I'm not talking about drug laws either.

      Can you own guns? Can you get GM car parts easily? If so, i'm there.

    30. Re:Canadian laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I could suggest a place to move it would be Holland, so far they are BY FAR the most Liberal, free country on earth. I'm not talking about drug laws either.

      I will have to discount this as based on your lack of travel and real global experience. Holland is anything but the utopia you paint it to be. There are a lot of people who migrate over the borders because the spaghetti laws are too much.

      But then you'd have to have lived there to appreciate it, and you ostensibly have not. And you might try spending a year or two in other countries, such as Luxembourg, Belgium, the UK, France, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, et al, before you reach any more hasty conclusions. A lot of people have - I have.

      Good night, my little Canadien.

    31. Re:Canadian laws by mdmarkus · · Score: 1

      You'd get modded as informative (even helpful), if you provided a link. Anyone want to help slashdot Immigration Canada?

    32. Re:Canadian laws by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Heck, and let's not forget to actually live and work there, as a local. The taxes in a country like Denmark used to be killer (many years ago, no idea about whether their system has changed). As for Holland, when balanced out against US wages, taxes, insurance, and more, my counterpart in Holland actually made more cash take home than I did at the end of the day. We were both "average" salaried for our respective countries.

      Now granted, items in general appeared to cost more, and the standard of living is different in Holland, and lower by many standards. Then again, it's higher by others, especially for those that are poor, disabled, or old.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    33. Re:Canadian laws by DR+SoB · · Score: 1

      Ahh, the little AC that could. Why do you keep following me around? Is it because you find my views enlightening maybe??

      Canadian is how it is spelled, as I am _not_ french. Thanks.

      And if you think I'm lacking in the area's of travel, you are mistaken. I don't know why you'd think that, but obviously you don't know me very well. I have travelled Europe quite a bit, and honestly, Holland is by far the best country I've been too. The views, the people, the freedom, it was, eye opening to say the least. I always though Canada was a very free liberal country, until that point. I still love Canada, don't get me wrong.

      Good night, my little AC stalker.

      --
      Mod +5 Drunk
    34. Re:Canadian laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of Canada, I loved Bill Maher this last week when the former Canadian Prime Minister said "If someone got up and said that God told them to run for Prime Minister and that the jury was out on evolution, we would put them in an asylum not make them Prime Minister."

    35. Re:Canadian laws by iantri · · Score: 1
      No smuggling needed.

      As they are not taxes/tarrifs (it's a levy) you do not pay it.. the store does. They pass the cost on to you (in fact, to make people aware of it many stores either add it on as a tax at the register so people know, like London Drugs, or post signs everywhere explaining the situation with the address for the CCFDA).

      Anyway, you get around that by importing your CD's -- you can buy them online in 100-packs from the States and it's perfectly legal. You just have to be careful to do it in such a way to avoid ridiculous customs charges..

    36. Re:Canadian laws by beanyk · · Score: 1

      Can you own guns? Can you get GM car parts easily? If so, i'm there.


      If I recall Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, Canada might have a higher per-capita ownership of guns than the U.S.
    37. Re:Canadian laws by jo42 · · Score: 1


      Everything goes in cycles. Just wait until the next housing crash.

    38. Re:Canadian laws by jo42 · · Score: 1


      In Canada, IT business is run by Indians (from India, not Native). What do you call that? Insourcing?

    39. Re:Canadian laws by Kelt · · Score: 1

      Kerry is already talking about fixing some of the egregious offences in the Patriot Act.

      -Kelt

      --
      My intelligence insults itself.
    40. Re:Canadian laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah yeah yeah, move to Canada, of COURSE they would NEVER do something like that ...

      Chicken sh*t !! The American forefathers didn't fight for our Constitution and freedom just to have you run off when they are in real danger from neoconservatives.

      U.S. People - don't just run from this big American problem - let's FIX it!!!

    41. Re:Canadian laws by sangreal66 · · Score: 1

      How does the government watching you, in itself, restrict your freedom?

    42. Re:Canadian laws by bonkedproducer · · Score: 1

      to quote (actually paraphrase) Bill Hicks - here is a picture of modern politics in America:

      Man #1: I think the puppet on the left shares my views.

      Man #2: I think the puppet on the right shares my views.

      Man #1 & Man #2: Wai-i-i-i-i-t a minute - they're both being controlled by the same pers....

      BOOMING VOICE: GO BACK TO SLEEP AMERICA, REMEMBER - YOU ARE FREE......... FREE TO DO AS I TELL YOU... TO DO AS I TELL YOU... TO Do as I tel.....

      --
      Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
    43. Re:Canadian laws by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      For the record, I was asking about Holland. I alreadty know that America Jr. is ok on theose two points.

    44. Re:Canadian laws by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1
      That said, we have only so much tolerance for Big Brother, and especially for the wishes of our southern brethren. CSIS may do the CIA's bidding, but when an issue is outed and has popular support, they will often back down.
      What, and Americans don't? America had some of the world's strongest laws limiting their federal government, and it still didn't help them. An entire nation of paranoid, gun-toting conspiracy nuts who distrust the federal government -- and now they tolerate election tampering and practically live in a despotism.

      Believe me, us Canadians are not so far from that. The age of freedom is ending; the age of universal serfdom to the government is beginning.

    45. Re:Canadian laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I lived there and did not see any guns although about once a month I would see a crappy american car. Taxi drivers there drive mercedes. I saw two fights in the entire year I was there living in the 'ghetto' in the Bilmer area.

      They don't need guns because all of the dickheads like you are stoned 24/7 in the Bulldog coffeeshops which is where all of the pussy american tourists go.

      You'll fit right in there.

    46. Re:Canadian laws by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Yes, he is.

      But as with every other pres. political campaigner, the only time you find out the real truth is after they are elected.

      To be fair, partially this is due to the entrenched system in place...

      Sigh. In all honesty, no matter who takes office, or how long they keep it, the US is probably pretty well fucked. There are way too many people in power who would like to keep it that way, and are going to stop at nothing to achieve their goals.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    47. Re:Canadian laws by senatorpjt · · Score: 1

      To even get slightly looked at, you have to be an uploader. Apparently the legal argument is that just having a file available to upload, does not qualify as uploading (ie, having 10,000 files in your shared folder does not show that you upload), so unless the canadian version of RIAA can prove that you actually initiated the upload yourself (as opposed to someone requesting it from you), they can not prove a crime, and cannot request your identity.

      Just out of curiosity, what do you think this means for something like BitTorrent, where you're basically initiating an upload at the same time?

      Also, considering that during the download, you're uploading something you don't even have, at least in entirety.

    48. Re:Canadian laws by senatorpjt · · Score: 1

      If you noticed someone staring in your window, would you just go back to whatever it was you were doing, even if it was legal?

    49. Re:Canadian laws by senatorpjt · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, the "America" that you speak of no longer exists.

    50. Re:Canadian laws by flatface · · Score: 1

      It's still you (the uploader) uploading copyrighted material. Whether in part or whole, you're still doing it.

    51. Re:Canadian laws by instarx · · Score: 1

      You better believe Norway looks good. Norway has a higher standard of living than the US, its people have a longer life expectancy, crime is very low, they have free universal healthcare and education, and it's one of the most beautiful places on the planet....

      The only problem for us disaffected Americans is that the Norwegians have strict immigration laws and it is very difficult for us to move there!

    52. Re:Canadian laws by instarx · · Score: 1

      But, you know...seriously...while no huge fan of Pres. Bush....from what I hear from Kerry...and the more I learn of him and his views. I don't really see him making ANY kind of difference over issues like this (privacy)...or most the others. I think both parties are so owned by big money obligations to corporate interests...that nothing will change.

      I disagree. It used to be that the two parties were primarily centrist, but the Republicans have become such right-wing extremists that the moderate Democrats are now liberal by comparison. I think the policies of the Bush administration have awakened a lot of Democrats and shown them why they are Democrats. We will never have a party that is totally good, so we just have to pick the one that best serves our wishes. Over time, if we pick candidates who think as we do the reforms will come.

      So when we get a bunch of civil-liberties cancelling, Constitution-ammending, privacy-invading,
      police-state minded neoconservative fat cats in office we just have to vote the bastards out and remember to never make that mistake again.

      Here's another point: Which candidate should you vote for - one that you THINK may lie to you in the future or one that you KNOW is lying to you? Seems a no-brainer to me.

    53. Re:Canadian laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be too enthusiast.

      I am from the Netherlands (sometimes named Holland which isn't an accurate name since those are only 2 provinces) and i can assure you that we have quite a bit 1984 shit here.

      A few quick facts:

      * The Netherlands has the most taps of whole Europe, relatively that is. This has been so for years.

      * ISP's _have_ to tap data. This has been the case since 2001 since the new cybecrime law (one of the most huge additions on the first one in 1993 which effectively made cracking illegal).

      * With the new computercriminality law which is according to European standards the minister of justice, Piet Hein Donner. That's no difference with other European countries although we're one of the first who will adopt that law. There are a few differences though: even if you'd surf right into a computer where you shouldn't, even when the security of a computer is peanuts or wide open you can and will still be prosecuted in full extend of the law. No "creative surfing" anymore, etc.

      * We do have a patent law but we do not have software patents right now just like the rest of Europe. This could change though, we haven't completely beaten it _yet_.

      * Big brother ain't here? Haha, fuck off. Camera's all over the place, too. The drug thing is only about cannabis and that's all true but other countries are adopting it too.

      I can't tell you wether the Netherlands is a nice place to live in for you.

      Don't believe everything you read about the Netherlands! Better check out the laws and research other things yourself, before moving!

      PS: Liberal here means mostly liberal right, ie. for security which limits privacy, for big business, etc; no "free" or anarchistic tendancies there, except for the government and the businesses. "Liberal crap" for example means something else than it does in the USA.

    54. Re:Canadian laws by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > In the so called land of the free, you are no longer free with the gov't watching your every move, because you may be a terrorist.

      Tell me in exact terms, what you have done that the government has watched. The gov does NOT watch your every move. There are 280 million Americans, for the most part, they don't care what ranolen or hesiod are doing. Hell, they don't have the resources to do what you are claiming they are doing. Take off the fucking tinfoil hat, you maniac.

    55. Re:Canadian laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More proof the Netherlands isn't "that" free:

      "FBI wil Nederlands aftapbeleid invoeren" (means: "FBI wants to introduce Dutch drainage policy")

      http://195.241.84.233/News.cfm?id=34890

    56. Re:Canadian laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      US govt buys world's biggest RAM disk
      2.5TB in solid state memory - but what's it for?

    57. Re:Canadian laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /. doesn't like linked newline?
      link.

      "Texas Memory Systems" heh.

    58. Re:Canadian laws by Orgazmus · · Score: 1

      Hehe, if you have ever read Norwegian newspapers, you wouldnt think that its so hard.
      Just get here on a vacation or something, then claim you have a fifth-cusin living here.

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    59. Re:Canadian laws by Fishead · · Score: 1

      Oh boy am I ever waiting for that.

      With the way things are booming right now, there is no way I can buy a house. I need a whole lot of people to go bankrupt before I can afford anything. However, that may only happen if a lot of people lose their jobs. And one of those people could be me. And that would suck.

    60. Re:Canadian laws by webwide · · Score: 0
      Here's another point: Which candidate should you vote for - one that you THINK may lie to you in the future or one that you KNOW is lying to you? Seems a no-brainer to me.

      Exactly. That's why Kerry's refusal to release medical records and his ... oh, wait. Never mind....

      --
      Glenn Dixon http://vagabondians.com
    61. Re:Canadian laws by ssstraub · · Score: 1

      Didn't Kerry actually vote FOR the patriot act when it was passed? I'd say it's too late for him to say that now.

  3. said it before, and i'll say it again.... by chef_raekwon · · Score: 1, Interesting

    the US is becoming the feared bohemoth, in George Orwell's 1984.
    Soon, everyone will have a camera in their homes, and there will be no escaping Big Brother.

    no flamebait intended.

    --
    We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
    1. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by millahtime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, it's ok to tap the phone but if the communication goes over the internet it's not ok to tap???? Why is one ok but not the other???

      To tap either one they would still need a court order. The same approval process. It's not like they can just go monitor anyone they want whenever they want.

    2. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There needs to be a new Godwin law that says that in any discussion on privacy a reference to 1984 will occur.

    3. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well , the can. All they have to do is 'pinky swear' that it is part of a National Security Matter. Just like they said the USA PATRIOT act would be used only against terrorists. Well, till they used it against that strip club owener is Vegas who has NO TERRORIST TIES>

      In short, they lie.

    4. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Insightful
      > the US is becoming the feared bohemoth, in George Orwell's 1984. Soon, everyone will have a camera in their homes, and there will be no escaping Big Brother.

      If you really believed that, would you post such a thing to a public message board whose contents are archived by anyone (and everyone)?

    5. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I actually have 8 cameras around and in my home.

      and yes they are accessable from the internet...

      no I don't want my house to explode, and the Cable line to burst into flames because it has been slashdotted, so I wont submit the URL here...

      Living at home in a semi-public way is not too much of a change, but you do become constantly aware of the cameras and think twice about doing something private in view of them.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, your ilk is pathetically stupid.

    7. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by rabbot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I missed the post where someone said it was ok to randomly tap phone lines.

    8. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by MoneyT · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well that's something that needs to be adressed that the law isn't being implimented properly. But anyone who reads the patriot act will note that all wiretaps still require court authority AND any taps under the PATRIOT act have to be part of an already ongoing investigation. Here are the relevant sections:

      www.thebaka.com/rants/patriot

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    9. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      >It's not like they can just go monitor anyone they want whenever they want.

      I thought that's exactly what they could do with the Patriot Act, if it's in the name of "war on terror"?

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    10. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Cadmus · · Score: 1

      But then again, by the time Big Brother does take over, he/she/it can just take away the original poster and wipe out the archive. By then almost everyone will be like sheep anyway and they'll happily forget it ever existed. Those that don't will meet the same fate as the original poster.

      It will be double plus good.

    11. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by rfrenzob · · Score: 1

      Could this be the first step towards a new definition of "trustowrthy computing" under which the only packets which are acceptable to transmit are those that are unencrypted?

    12. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is not so much with the wiretapping itself, which they can already do by installing a packet sniffer onto any of the systems between client and host, but with the requirement that ISPs bend over backwards to provide the FBI with easy access to people's communications. According to this story, the law could go so far as to require software makers to build back doors into server software. Can you imagine what would happen to P2P apps like Freenet if developers were required to introduce back doors into the code?

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    13. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you tell us what you find so relevant instead of pointing us to a biased web site.

    14. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO. Law isn't being implemented incorrectly if it's abused. It was a BAD LAW to start with. Good laws are solid, and can only be interpreted in one way.

    15. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by jo42 · · Score: 1


      Yeah, but everything is now under the 9/11 investigation, isn't it?

    16. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by jo42 · · Score: 1


      Wierdo!

    17. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by bwy · · Score: 1

      I really don't think in the cases of the Patriot Act and so forth that the government is out to become "big brother" in the sense of 1984. I think they honestly believe they are fighting terrorism and they have to take these steps to stop terrorists. However, I couldn't disagree more. We're COMPLETELY spinning our wheels if we're trying to go after these terrorists one by one. Individual terrorists have little effect on the overall movement. We could have locked up all of the 9-11 terrorists before 9-11 and you know what? They would have been replaced. The government must declare the enemy. Who was the enemy in WWII? Soldiers in Hitler's army? Japanese kamikaze pilots? No, the enemies were Naziism and Imperialism.

      We are engaged in this huge "war on terror" as they call it. Yet Bush won't define the enemy- he has not named them. The enemy is not a few individuals that we can weed out with wire taps. I don't know what the hell Bush is afraid of but I'll say it for him- the enemy is militant Islam. Islamic fundamentalism, its followers, and its ideology. Why did we go after Iraq? Who knows. While Iraq was far from innocent and Saddam deserved everything he got, it was a waste of effort if the goal was to make the U.S. a safer place. We should have bombed the shit out of Iran instead. They are well known to be the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and they breed people with the core beliefs that, if they accept it, leaves them with no other choice in life but to want to destroy western culture.

      The attitude of the Spanish humors me. They seem to think they can bargain with Al Queda, electing the president Ben Laden would like the most, and withdrawing troops from here or there. This is a joke. Nobody is safe until they abandon every last shred of western beliefs. Fire all your scientists, disband your goverment and let warlords rule the lands by fear, and abandon your interest in this world and focus on the after life exclusively. If you do those things, you will probably be safe.

    18. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off worthless troll .. it ain't done with yet

    19. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      It's not biased at all, and it's all what I feel is relevant because it is ALL the sections of the patriot act which I could find that pertain to electronic survielence, and none of them mention anything about being able to tap without court permission.

      Try again

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    20. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      So then I take it all of the amendments to the constitution are BAD LAWs since they can be interpreted differently right? A law is bad if that law infringes or promotes the infringement of rights without due process. It's not a bad law if it can be abused. It's a bad law if it promotes abuse.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    21. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Negative. You have to show connection, and the courts have ruled time and again that 3 degrees of seperation is not a connection.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    22. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To tap a phone you need a court order. Once it becomes VOIP they just get you with echelon or carnivore or whatever it is called now. You just capture the interesting data and encode it as sound and send it to a restricted teleconferencing bridge. Then they dial in and listen or record.

    23. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1
      Hmph. Sounds just like the confiscation provisions implemented at the start of the War on Drugs (TM). There were provisions to prevent misuse of the laws by local authorities.

      That's worked really fucking well, hasn't it? If one follows these things (I do) there is an example of those confiscation laws being misused EVERY FUCKING DAY somewhere in this country, and the courts are mostly powerless or biased in applying those provisions.

      What makes you think that the Patriot act wiretap provisions won't be (and haven't been!) misused?

      It's nice and all that you can quote law and say that it isn't being implemented properly; but I have a small problem with your version of reality. You seem to think that law is a be-all end-all to problems. Well, it isn't.

      /rant

      So, so sorry, I'm not providing umpteen links, backup facts, whatever. I've lived thru it, and seen the changes that happened, and I think that you simply don't understand how legislation can be warped to serve the ends of those who don't have any conception of their duty.

      Mod me flamebait, I don't fucking care. I am sick of people quoting law in this day and age with all the shit going on - and on slashdot even! - and thinking that's it's some kind of universal constant like gravity that truly applies to everyone.

      Angry? You bet your lily-white ass I'm angry. Write my congresscritter? Bwahahahahahahah Get with the program already, Consumer.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    24. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by computational+super · · Score: 1

      Because we'd rather die free than live caged.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    25. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      So if a law has potential to be misused, it should be struck down? Good then I'll be starting my campaign to strike down most of the constitution. And for that matter, all investigative laws.

      Again, I ask to show me where in the patriot act it grants police the power to wire tap without a warrent. Whether it changes what courts they can go to for that warrent is irrelevant, that's another issue.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    26. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      So if a law has potential to be misused, it should be struck down?

      Nope, that's not what I said at all.

      If a law has potential for abuse, it should have the potential to be struck down by the courts - without endless reviews (for crying out loud, we have obviously idiotic laws on the books that are more than a century old in a lot of jurisdictions). It rarely happens - but that was exactly what the checks and balances system was created for.

      Show me where in the drug legislation instituted by the Reagan administration that local authorities could tie up property confiscated by people who were not convicted (and in some cases not even indicted) of a crime, in the courts for years, and force them to expend huge amounts of time and money to get their property back, and I'll start listening to you.

      Show me where under the Patriot act that one can violate the Constitution by holding people without access to counsel, speedy trial, or bail, and I'll start listening to you.

      It's happened. Do some fucking research. I'm not just posting this shit, I've participated as a jury member in some drug confiscation counter-lawsuit cases. You wouldn't belive the misconceptions that can cause innocent people to have to file civil lawsuits to get their property back. Goddamn, are you living in a news blackout?

      Jesus, are you so seriously isolated that you haven't been following the news (here on slashdot, even) where it is being misused? Come on, already. Do you really believe that laws aren't more and more widely misused in this country by people who can see the loopholes in them?

      Sorry, I just can't take you seriously. I'm nearly forty years old. I've seen it. There are a helluva lot of people my age and older who see our freedoms getting hijacked by bullshit just like this. Are you seriously saying they are all wrong?

      Do your own fucking research. Learn something about the reality behind all the hype that you've been taught. It's obvious to me that there is no way that anything I could post in the way of references or experience that would convince you.

      Holy fucking moley. I'm sorry for the rant style, but you really have to start looking into the ways that "law" can/is used and abused, if you want to understand the reality that trumps the paper the law is written on.

      Seriously, man, I'm sorry for the rant; but if you're going to quote law, you at least should be cognizant of the reality in which it is applied.

      Educate yourself. It's not up to me to do it. I am not getting paid for it, and my time is just as valuable as yours is, kiddo.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    27. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you Mr. ashcroft....... nice try!

    28. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by instarx · · Score: 1
      Again, I ask to show me where in the patriot act it grants police the power to wire tap without a warrent.

      Here's the information you requestd...

      From the EFF (emphasis mine):

      FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is being used by a suspect or target of an order, or even specifically identifying the person targeted. The government may now serve a single Title III 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.


      Note that the "orders" as used above means a police wiretap order, NOT a court order authorizing a wiretap.

      I'm too lazy to embed the link to the entire analysis, but here it is...

      http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terroris m/ 20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php
    29. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      And I'm telling you that from what I read, the EFF is wrong, or twisting the wording to promote their view of the law.

      I don't want a synopsis, I want the actual sections of the law.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    30. Re:said it before, and i'll say it again.... by instarx · · Score: 1

      And I suppose you want me to use 11 pt. Letter Gothic type as well.

      I'm not about to wade through the USA Patriot Act just to satisfy your requirements. Any reasonable person would accept the multiple independent summaries of the USAPA that are available. The lost restraints on wiretaps and the newly acquired ability of the government to tap any citizen's phone without their name ever having to appear on a request to a judge for a Court Order are common issues in these reports. When I was Googling I ran across at least 10 professionally prepared legal summaries of the USAPA, including one in a report to Congress, that pointed out the same issues as the EFF summary.

      If anyone other than you was saying that the act did not give the government the right to tap individual phones without a specific court order that named the person(s) involved, or what criminal acts they were suspected of commiting, I might be tempted to read it for myself, but you are the only one.

  4. PGP by slavefishy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now would be the time to get using PGP and similar software.

    1. Re:PGP by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      Now would be the time to get using PGP and similar software.

      Thats great amongst a few like-minded people, but most people I know don't want to fiddle with encryption or even care if the messages are intercepted by persons or agencies unknown. You can't encrypt something by yourself (message-wise anyway).

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    2. Re:PGP by e9th · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder how long it will be before we have mandatory key escrow? "To protect us against the terrorists," of course.

    3. Re:PGP by jagilbertvt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've seriously considered offering a service providing ssh tunneling from say, a pc on a cable modem to a server at a remote location, which would then route the traffic as requested. This should be plenty feasible, as you should be able to use ssh tunneling w/ just about any application.

      Now might be a good time to look into this further.

    4. Re:PGP by slavefishy · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall that in the UK, under the RIP Act, the government can demand your private key if they suspect there's worthwhile evidence there.

    5. Re:PGP by chihowa · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So the obvious follow-up is:

      I use gpg in Evolution to clearsign messages. A few of my Windows packing friends and family have expressed an interest in using encryption in their email. Not having a Windows system at my disposal, I haven't found any good drop-in PGP (or gpg) plugin for Outlook Express or Mozilla Mail. Of course, I haven't spent a hell of a lot of time looking.

      Yeah, yeah... I should tell them to ditch OE, but doing that implies that I'll be their tech support until the end of time (and I have a problem saying no).

      Anyone found a good solution? It should look good and require little interaction. I think Evolution's support of gpg is fantastic.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    6. Re:PGP by dissy · · Score: 1

      > > Now would be the time to get using PGP and similar software.

      > Thats great amongst a few like-minded people, but most people I know don't want
      > to fiddle with encryption

      Just 8 years ago we said the same exact thing about the Internet.

      "Oh, thats great for a few like minded people, but no real person would want to buy a computer just to send this email stuff that no one they know can read!"

      Now look at us...

    7. Re:PGP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > I seem to recall that in the UK, under the RIP Act, the government can demand
      > your private key if they suspect there's worthwhile evidence there.

      I'm sure the sort of people who are crazy enough to kill themselves in a bid to kill as many civilians as possible are going to be concerned about that.

    8. Re:PGP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the right answer. However we would also have accepted:

      o to protect children from pedophiles
      o to investigate illegal drug trafficking
      o to stop global warming

      and

      o to monitor dissention in public and private forums.

    9. Re:PGP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feasible, but how can I trust you. I'd rather google had an https version.

    10. Re:PGP by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      "Oh, thats great for a few like minded people, but no real person would want to buy a computer just to send this email stuff that no one they know can read!"

      That's exactly the point I was striving to make. The parallel is the herd mentality involved. No one would have done it if they didn't know anyone else who had it. After all, emailing yourself loses its luster halfway into the third hour.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    11. Re:PGP by corbettw · · Score: 2

      I haven't found any good drop-in PGP (or gpg) plugin for Outlook Express

      That's odd, since according to this page, PGP Personal "includes the personal versions of PGP Mail and PGP Disk, which integrate with mainstream email applications (Outlook, Outlook Express, Eudora, Entourage, and Apple Mail)...."

      It would seem your search is at an end, grasshopper.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    12. Re:PGP by dillon_rinker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure you realize it, but you are seriously considering getting the FBI to bother you. If you provide a centralized service that makes it impossible for them to wiretap people, they will focus their efforts on your service. Centralizing people's encryption gives them a single point of failure.

      I'd also point out that if you are a lone individual and not a corporation with a pack of lawyers, the FBI can lean on you hard. Real hard. It doesn't matter if their actions are illegal if you can't prove it. Lots of luck.

    13. Re:PGP by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      "I forgot the passphrase. Sorry."

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    14. Re:PGP by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "I'm not sure you realize it, but you are seriously considering getting the FBI to bother you. If you provide a centralized service that makes it impossible for them to wiretap people, they will focus their efforts on your service."

      I dunno....I mean, you can run 'nym' servers..and I've never heard of anyone getting leaned on.

      I'd imagine if you could do something like this ssh tunnel to a point for your traffic idea...if you had it built so that many people could run these 'safe' ports...you could do it pretty much with impunity.

      I don't think there are any laws saying a 'private citizen' has to aid any agency with their eavesdropping....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re:PGP by kiolbasa · · Score: 2, Informative

      For Mozilla Mail, there is Enigmail.

      --

      Beer wants to be free
    16. Re:PGP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you trust google (or the ssl libraries you are using). There will always be something to distrust..

    17. Re:PGP by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now would be the time to get using PGP and similar software.

      Not a bad point at all - Such tools have existed for well over a decade, yet very few people use them. Time to really get on the ball and start teaching our friends and relatives - Even if we make it totally automated at their end, the goal has changed somewhat. Thanks to this new law, it doesn't really matter if physical access to either end compromises the connection, we just need to make sure nothing goes out in cleartext. So, even something as simple as "Okay Mom, if a little box pops up saying something about GPG, just type my birthday, okay?" would represent a dramatic improvement over our current situation.

      However, we need to make the use of encryption more ubiquitous than just email. For example, almost no traffic leaves my house that doesn't use SSL. However, for *incoming*, therein we have the biggest flaw in security. Currently, we have almost no way to prevent our ISP (or the feds through them) from watching our web browsing. Even using an anonymizing proxy doesn't help much, if the traffic itself comes to me in the clear.

      Ah, I babble a bit. Overall, I just want to make the point that we need to stop talking about how we can get around stupid laws like this with encryption, and start doing so, before it becomes a real problem. So, anyone reading this... Don't put it off until tomorrow. Install GPG on the PCs of everyone you know today. Tell their browser to use an anonymizing proxy that always uses https (Do any? If you know of one, please reply with a link). Outright remove any telnet and FTP clients from their machine, and replace them with SSH and SFTP clients. Kill AIM, and replace it with the encryption-enabled version of Trillian.

      We need to make sure that everything going in or out uses encryption.


      As an aside, if everyone used encrypted email, spam would cease to exist. It just costs to much CPU time for the spammers to encrypt ten million messages, thus making a "perfect" email filter as simple as dumping any unencrypted messages. Who needs Bill Gates? We just need to start using the tools already available.

    18. Re:PGP by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      I think that part of the controversy in the UK was that "I forgot the passphrase" is not a legitimate excuse, and that they can keep you in jail until you "remember" the passphrase.

      Some activists tried to use this by sending an encrypted message describing some crime to a VIP in the UK government, and trying to point out that the VIP should be arrested until he coughed up the passphrase (which he didn't know, of course). They were pretty much ignored - not surprisingly, badly-written laws don't get enforced on VIPs, only non-VIPs who piss off law enforcement.

    19. Re:PGP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because the ones you hear about are the ones that are allowed to exist. Like anonymizer.com, they probably already have backdoors if they are still around.

    20. Re:PGP by ryanjensen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Windows Privacy Tray and GnuPG Made Easy libraries. Works for me, except for a bug when I try to sign and encrypt at the same time ... the clipboard tools work for that.

    21. Re:PGP by LordNimon · · Score: 1

      Why don't you use S/MIME? That's built into Mozilla and Outlook, and it works great.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    22. Re:PGP by Cramer · · Score: 1
      Funny, there's already at least one company doing exactly that... an anonymous traffic proxy. I'm not going to post a link and thus slashdot their server. However, as "256,934" other people have hit the site (so says the counter), I'm sure you'll find it...
      • [censored] allows the user to traverse the Internet anonymously, across all ports and protocols.

        The only question that you need to ask is
        "Do I want to be UNKNOWN ..."

    23. Re:PGP by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All this crypto stuff is real nice and all, but if "they" want the info, you will be locked up until you give up the key. Besides just watching where the traffic goes tells them more than you can hide with crypto. In this war on privacy, the ISP can be a real weak link in privacy protection. So we need to ditch the ISP. The only way I know how is going truly wireless in some P2P kind of way. This could stop any tracing of traffic. I'm aware of the latency involved with all the "island hopping" that would be necessary to carry this out, but I think things like that can be worked out over time. Of course, another solution would be to send out so much "chaf", they could never sort it out. Disinformation can work both ways.

      --
      What?
    24. Re:PGP by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Because S/MIME is lame compared to PGP/MIME. That cert system is not only less powerful than PGP's (only one CA can vouch for someone's identity, so if you don't know or trust the CA, then you're at a dead end), but the tools are clumsier to work with, too.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    25. Re:PGP by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      I actually had a fairly long discussion with my MP (tory) on this matter (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act) and he expressed surpise when I informed him of the implications of the act. I am currently putting together a dossier detailing an IT workers view of the RIP act, the various interpretations of the RIP act going around on the net, and the current state of the laws affecting IT at the moment. This dossier will be presented to a Conservative committee in the near future, with the promise that it will be viewed highly within the upper Conservative party, and the possibility that it will be brought before a joint committee after that. If you have any thing you would like me to add or mention, please reply to this post.

      If you bring matters to the front with the correct people, things happen. Im jsut an ordinary person who happened to raise this matter in person.

    26. Re:PGP by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      I dunno....I mean, you can run 'nym' servers..and I've never heard of anyone getting leaned on

      It's ancient net.history now, alas. But remember anon.penet.fi

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    27. Re:PGP by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Nope...nym.alias.net was still there last I checked...several mixmaster sites...

      Go check here:

      Farout Remailer stats/links

      anon.efga.org

      Freedom Project

      And for more nym information: Nym creation for mere mortals

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    28. Re:PGP by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Check out an earlier post of mine. For email, you can use the nym server system and mixmaster..bounces your email all over the world, encrypted to a different server each hop....headers cleaned each place along the way...

      VERY difficult to trace that way..especially if you receive your mail on USENET sites..and it is encrypted out there...amongst millions of postings...hard to trace that...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    29. Re:PGP by pla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All this crypto stuff is real nice and all, but if "they" want the info, you will be locked up until you give up the key.

      True enough. However, at least currently, locking a person up until they reveal their key would require at least a court order (or even an actual trial? Not sure on that one).

      Providing an easy passive backdoor into every ISP, on the other hand, makes it far to easy to casually snoop around looking for illegal material to follow up on.

      If the FBI needs to investigate someone for an actual crime, I have no problem with them having the ability to obtain all relevant evidence. Having all the evidence available can prove innocence (funny idea, in a system that presumes innocence until proven guilty) just as readily as it can prove guilt. Not a problem.

      Without an active investigation, probably cause, and a court order, however, we formerly had protection under the fourth amendment from precisely the activities such ISP backdoors would permit. that I have a problem with.


      just watching where the traffic goes tells them more than you can hide with crypto

      A number of remailers, similar to anonymizing HTTP proxies, already exist to deal with that problem. Not exactly perfect, but it at least means the government will (probably) only bother working backward through the chain of redirections to catch someone they really want.

      Obviously, though, you have the right idea - If "they" want you, kiss yer anal virginity goodbye. But that doesn't mean we need to make what amounts to government-sanctioned voyeurism any easier.

    30. Re:PGP by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      The "ancient net history" was a reference to anon.penet.fi. I believe the operator shut it down voluntarily, as he was being harassed by both the government and the $cientologi$t$.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    31. Re:PGP by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah...I remember that...I thought that it was actually physically raided by the law enforcement personnel....but, I don't remember exactly. It wasn't nearly so anonymous at the nym and mixmaster servers of today are. On that one I believe...the owner COULD see who was assoc. with the anonymous address...not possible with the nym servers.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    32. Re:PGP by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      This is why I want to go real wireless. No ISP to worry about. The "court order" thing is a red herring. They hand those out like candy, so there is no protection against trumped up charges. Evidence is showing that gov't obeys the law as much as a bootlegger. As long as we can keep up in the privacy "arms race" (doing our absolute best to bring about absolute privacy to the individual) we'll be ok. I don't care whether the law says we have right to absolute privacy or not. I just want to see the technology bring it about, despite what the law may want.

      --
      What?
    33. Re:PGP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rubbish. It would only require them to imply "terrorist" connections. Or apparently illicit copies of M. Mouse esq. Or is that not until next week?

    34. Re:PGP by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      I don't think there are any laws saying a 'private citizen' has to aid any agency with their eavesdropping....

      Guess you haven't heard of Martha Stewart. She was investigated for stock fraud or insider trading. Those charges were dropped because she'd done nothing illegal. I won't debate the ethics or morality of her behavior, I merely want to point out that she violated NO LAW.

      The charges that stuck to Stewart involved non-cooperation with Federal Agents. Doing anything that makes a Federal Agent think that you're impeding his investigation will get you thrown in the slammer. There may not be a law saying you must aid them, but you can't impede them. Non-cooperation is an impediment. It's catch-22; if they want you to shut your server down, you have no choice.

    35. Re:PGP by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Actually...I think they charged her with that for LYING to the feds. If she had said nothing to them..spoken through a lawyer...she may have come out with no problems...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    36. Re:PGP by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      I've only read about it on various news services, but there's tons of articles about it accessible via Google (search for Britain & RIP). Most of them are quite scathing in their commentary - I'm sure you can compile quite a list of discussion points. Make sure you cross-reference things so that you don't accidentally repeat any false information.

  5. Globalization + due process by lichen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Broadband providers say the FBI's request would, for the first time, force cable providers that sell broadband to come under the jurisdiction of 1994's Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which further defined the already existing statutory obligations of telecommunications carriers to help police conduct electronic surveillance. Telephone companies that use their networks to sell broadband have already been following CALEA rules.

    Ok, fair enough I suppose. But the fact however, as has been pointed out here, is that not all programs are being written in the US. To make IM, VoIP, IRC, and or whatever other type of program that allows communication over IP have backdoors is bad enough. But to expect that every program on the planet has one is just downright silly. But, thats not really the bad part...

    Under CALEA, police must still follow legal procedures when wiretapping Internet communications. Depending on the situation, such wiretaps do not always require court approval, in part because of expanded wiretapping powers put in place by the USA Patriot Act.

    Bad, bad, bad. Is it so much to ask for due process here? I mean it's part of our own set of friggen laws. Is it so much to ask that the Feds follow the laws before they make new ones?

    1. Re:Globalization + due process by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bad, bad, bad. Is it so much to ask for due process here?

      Yes! They need to stop terrorists now! Imagine if they had to wait for a warrant! A terrorist could blow up your car! Or your child's daycare! Think of it, all those children, dead! Think of the children! For god sake, won't somebody think of the children!

    2. Re:Globalization + due process by Vancorps · · Score: 1
      Ashcroft doesn't believe in such things as the bill of rights or the constituion

      I would also like to know how they intent to read all the encrypted traffic, they mention forcing isps, not software companies so they can listen to packets but I'm not sure how much could that would do considering like me for instance, I check all my email from an ssl secure site.

      Either way this is quite disturbing, I don't like the wire tapping laws of the Patriot Act so naturally I don't like them being expanded, especially while Ashcroft is at the helm.
    3. Re:Globalization + due process by MoneyT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok would someone please please please point out the relevant sections which indicate that any wiretaps can be obtained without a court permission? I haven't found it yet.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    4. Re:Globalization + due process by Threni · · Score: 1

      ---
      But the fact however, as has been pointed out here, is that not all programs are being written in the US. To make IM, VoIP, IRC, and or whatever other type of program that allows communication over IP have backdoors is bad enough. But to expect that every program on the planet has one is just downright silly.
      ---

      This isn't about programs - it's about the infrastructure that the messages travel under. At least this way the Feds would have the (encrypted, possibly) data to play with. Currently they're (allegedly) not even legally entitled to that without at least asking.

    5. Re:Globalization + due process by Atzanteol · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're not supposed to *read* the patriot act! You're supposed to listen to the hearsay and conjecture on slashdot!

      Sheesh. Newbies...

      I don't know what everyone is whining about here. If the FBI can convince a court that they should be reading your email, listening to your conversations, etc., then I probably *want them to do so*. Has anybody thought what would happen if the FBI had too *little* power? The results could be just as bad as if they have too much power IMHO.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    6. Re:Globalization + due process by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      ...but I'm not sure how much could that would do considering like me for instance, I check all my email from an ssl secure site.

      I imagine Asscroft and friends would like to try to coerce your "ssl secure site" into installing something that would intercept the key exchange and give them both sides of the conversation.

      Besides which, they don't really have to intercept your link to your ssl secure site anyway, because they can grab your inbound & outbound email from your provider's upstream link.

      You're only really going to be secure if your email is encrypted before it leaves your computer and decrypted once it reaches the adressee's computer. And vice versa.

    7. Re:Globalization + due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I don't understand why you used that link. I'm sure you can find the final verions somewhere. If you really care about "national security" wire taps, I'd start here.

      Please don't tell me you think a secret panel of judges selected by the executive branch is a court. A court is part of a court system with due process, there is no due process in FISA. If you do a litte more searching you can find the judges wrote an open letter where they say the executive branch repeatedly lied to them. They can't say about what.

    8. Re:Globalization + due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you can and should read the Patriot Act. That link from theBaka or what ever just leads to a very sparse overview of the Patriot Act. Go look for it elsewhere -- it is hundreds of pages long and, yes it does allow for wiretapping without a court order.

    9. Re:Globalization + due process by Fascist+Christ · · Score: 1

      I wonder how this would hold up in court.

      There are tons of unenforced laws. We have all heard of rediculous laws that are someohow still on the books. Judges stop recognising them, usually since they are unconstitutional.

      Instead of the average person, let's take a terroist as an example. Let's say this law provided law enforcement with the only evidence they had. From the evidence, it is obvious that the terrorist had ill intentions. The judge then throws it out since there was no court approval, considering such approval a constitutional right.

      Then we have to let someone go who we know is up to no good.

      Maybe we should have memorizing the constitution as a prerequisite for presidency.

      --
      TodayTM BillyJoelTM GoogleTMd for StitchTMes due to WindowsTM while RollerbladeTMing with an AppleTM and a PopsicleTM
    10. Re:Globalization + due process by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You really think that 128 bit SSL can't be cracked in real-time...nonsense?...maybe not?...given various mathematical shorcuts combined with large amounts of memory, SSL may not be as secure as most folks are led to believe.

      But even if 128 bit SSL is as secure as folks believe, unless one encrypts everything, they are still likely vulnerable.

      For example, you may check your email from a SSL secure site, but I'd bet much of that email you receive was sent in the "clear" at some point...and how do you send encrypted email...or don't you? Unless you are encrypting most everything, eventually enough little bits and pieces will leak out in the "clear". Do you encrypt your URLs...if not, that alone will reveal a lot about you to eavesdroppers.

      In short, the only real answer is for people to rise up and demand better legal protections of their rights for technical measures alone won't do it...

      Ron

    11. Re:Globalization + due process by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      That was the final version of the patriot act, it was merely all the relevant sections in the act relating to wiretaps stripped out from the unrelated portions of the bill.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    12. Re:Globalization + due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I understand, if the cops have a court order allowing them to wiretap, the companies have to help. Why is that so bad?

      Doing it without a court order is not this bill's fault, that would the the Patriot Act, so for all you tin-foil assholes, direct your flames towards that.

    13. Re:Globalization + due process by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Ok, fair enough I suppose. But the fact however, as has been pointed out here, is that not all programs are being written in the US. To make IM, VoIP, IRC, and or whatever other type of program that allows communication over IP have backdoors is bad enough."

      I'm against making it easy for the agencies to spy on us citizens, but, I don't think this act applies to programs or software, such as IM..etc. This is just basically to allow the Feds easier access to 'tap' into the pipe that communications from ALL programs is going through...

      At least so far...so, if you can manage to encrypt all your traffic somehow...they can listen, but, probably can't make anything of it...

      If they are interested in you at that point...they'll just be coming into your house and physically getting your computer and other items. At that point...better have your whole hard drive encrypted very heavily...and if they force the issue...if you don't tell them the passcode...you'll just be sitting in jail anyway....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    14. Re:Globalization + due process by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      128 bit SSL is NOT secure, at least not from government resources. From the average hacker, yes it is. And that's all it's really meant to protect you from. 1024 bit encryption isn't secure either, nor is any other published mathematical formula. Anything that is interceptable and has a known formula applied to it can be cracked. However, if everything's encrypted to a reasonable level, that means resources have to be devoted to it, and that costs cash, therefore, widely used adequate encryption prevents mass scanning, and we're back to targeted scanning, which is what wire-tapping is roughly equivalent to.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    15. Re:Globalization + due process by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      the only real answer is for people to rise up and demand better legal protections
      That doesn't work. The government isn't your only threat. The other threats are going to ignore the law. Maybe if you pass a law that LEOs need a warrant to snoop, they'll obey. But organized crime won't obey. The pervert who works at your mistress' ISP who is going to show your love letters to your wife unless you pay him $500, won't obey. B1FF the 31337 H4XX0R won't obey.

      Legal protections aren't enough. You have to technologically secure your communications.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    16. Re:Globalization + due process by Cramer · · Score: 1

      They aren't putting "backdoors" in every program. CALEA is about simplifying and standardizing the access methods and data for wire taps. In the sense of IP communications, that's pretty much already within the CALEA spec: packet mode communications. The only difference is the type of data (IP vs. packet voice, IPv4/6 vs. NSAP, etc.) And, by the way, they can ALREADY tap your IP communications -- anyone with access along the path ("man in the middle") can.

      I've not read all the BS within the PATRIOT act, but I have read a great deal within CALEA. The parent poster is correct; under CALEA a court order is required. Paperwork must be filed in accordance with the provisions of CALEA before any tap is active. And under these provisions, the telco (ISP) can take up to *60* days to complete the order -- this allows for circuit ordering, provisioning, installation, testing, etc. Seeing as ISPs generally are not telcos, they have no power over physical circuit provisioning. And CALEA requires a direct, point-to-point, connection to the LEA collection facility for CDC (call detail) data. CCC (call content) can be "on demand" (i.e. dialup.)

      [I can speak with some authority in this area as one of my duties at my former employer was as the CALEA implementation administrator. I worked with switch admins, techs, and provisioners and the fraud department to "make it all work" -- clearly outlined proceedures, IP address maps for the telco switching network (yes, IP is running inside that 20 year old switch), test proceedures, etc. I basically became a switch tech for a few months :-) (and people say UNIX is cryptic.)]

    17. Re:Globalization + due process by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Actually, all one needs is the web server's SSL cert. Then you can decode every ssl session that uses that cert. However, not all SSL connections will use it (like SSL2, 40bit keys, ... they aren't secure in that the key can be recovered in a few hours or days, but much more secure than a compromised ssl cert :-))

    18. Re:Globalization + due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the TinFoilHat Brigade is out in force again, posting at Score:2 to boot.

      You lump all forms of crypto into one argument, saying 'its breakable' forgetting the fact that there are computer/math heads out there who's only goal is to make sure it *ISN'T*.

      Had you said something intelligent, like 'governments are likely able to factor v.v.large numbers, making public key crypto significantly weaker than often believed' then things might be different.

      However, all you did was ramble in a paranoid fashion, mixed with some flashes of the obvious (you mean, it costs money to spy on people????)

      Seriously. Take off your little +1 bonus, you don't deserve it for tripe like that. Stop making broad, sweeping generalizations that are wrong.

    19. Re:Globalization + due process by Alorelith · · Score: 1

      It would be funny if we battled Ashcroft with kindness. Instead of making him go through the trouble of getting court orders and warrants and all that stuff that gets in the way of fighting TERRORISTS, why don't we all just send our IM conversations and weblogs and cookie recipes and emails to our penile growth supplement supplier to him. Get the whole tech community to send all this information in both electronic and physical form to the good ol' DOJ. I was thinking about getting some new carpeting for my room, maybe I should send some color samples to Ashcroft and see what he thinks would fit best.

    20. Re:Globalization + due process by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      You really think that 128 bit SSL can't be cracked in real-time...nonsense?...maybe not?...given various mathematical shorcuts combined with large amounts of memory, SSL may not be as secure as most folks are led to believe.


      The question is who can break strong crypto. Large Corps? No. The FBI? Very Very unlikely. The FBI is good at investigating crime, but they don't know jack about breaking crypto. The CIA? Maybe, but they aren't really crypto guys either. The NSA? Yah, I'd be willing to bet they could crack SSL with some effort. Even the NSA it's hard to say though. I'd bet these days they go more for breaking into computers and bugging them than going the hard route and breaking the crypto. It's much easier to compromise the pathways that are unencrypted than break crypto.

      If the NSA is monitoring your communications, you're very likely an international threat, and not some penny-anty political criminal, or war3z d00d. The NSA is also only an intelligence agency, so they're MUCH more interested in the information you leak than busting you for whatever they can try to pin on you. They're also unlikely to reveal the information they gathered on you via crypto-breaking, as that would tip the hat as to what they can break.

      --
      AccountKiller
    21. Re:Globalization + due process by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

      According to one of the stories in the write up, "legal experts said the 85-page filing includes language that could be interpreted as forcing companies to build back doors into everything from instant messaging and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) programs to Microsoft's Xbox Live game service. The introduction of new services that did not support a back door for police would be outlawed, and companies would be given 15 months to make sure that existing services comply." If these experts are right then CALEA could certainly lead to mandatory backdoors in any kind of server software which facilitates communication between third parties (relative to the host). Stuff like Instant Messaging and P2P servers are the most likely candidates for such draconian measures.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    22. Re:Globalization + due process by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Where? The page I linked to is the relevant sections of the patriot act as it refers to electronic surveilence and wiretaps. If there are other sections, please find them for me.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    23. Re:Globalization + due process by sdmacguru · · Score: 1
      Complete EPIC.ORG text

      Try section 216 MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO USE OF PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES.

      I think that is the relevant section, but of course, IANAL.

      --
      If I had some ham, I'd make a ham sandwich, if I had some bread
    24. Re:Globalization + due process by Vancorps · · Score: 1
      Well, I control the email server so they can't just pull anything. Besides that, the law does not allow them to capture everyone email send from a mail server. It has to be user specific so they can't monitor the upstream. As for mail being sent to me, well, I have many addresses only one of which is linked to my name so good luck to them trying to monitor every last email that comes into my office.

      Even if they can break the ssl certificate which can quite easily ramp up to 4096bit encryption (Although I don't go that far for obvious server resource reasons) they still won't know who's sending what because they are monitoring the external side of the server, they do not have control of my server nor will they in the near future.

      That said, most of my email is intraoffice email and thus, never leaves the outside world. In the case of me checking my email from home through the ssl encrypted gateway the email is encrypted from end to end but I think you are dramatically overstating the FBIs ability to crack crypto.
    25. Re:Globalization + due process by Vancorps · · Score: 1
      Some email I receive is unencrypted at some point, but almost all of it is encrypted the entire time since it is intraoffice email it never actually goes out onto the internet in an unencrypted form.

      I think a better solution to changing the law would be convincing the Administration that the price would be too great on ISPs since they excuse has worked for the oil and power companies which had all their regulations scrubbed for the same reason. So either the Administration publicly makes themself look like a hypocrit or they change their stance. Although I wouldn't be surprised if they'd go the public route since that's exactly what they did with Iraq.

    26. Re:Globalization + due process by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Well let's take a look at 216 (which by the way was in the original link)

      (1) ATTORNEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT- Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(1), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.

      So far so good, we're still asking for court permission

      `(2) STATE INVESTIGATIVE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER- Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(2), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device within the jurisdiction of the court, if the court finds that the State law enforcement or investigative officer has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.

      Still need court permission

      (A) Where the law enforcement agency implementing an ex parte order under this subsection seeks to do so by installing and using its own pen register or trap and trace device on a packet-switched data network of a provider of electronic communication service to the public, the agency shall ensure that a record will be maintained which will identify--

      `(i) any officer or officers who installed the device and any officer or officers who accessed the device to obtain information from the network;

      `(ii) the date and time the device was installed, the date and time the device was uninstalled, and the date, time, and duration of each time the device is accessed to obtain information;

      `(iii) the configuration of the device at the time of its installation and any subsequent modification thereof; and

      `(iv) any information which has been collected by the device.


      Accountability

      (B) The record maintained under subparagraph (A) shall be provided ex parte and under seal to the court which entered the ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of the device within 30 days after termination of the order (including any extensions thereof).'.

      Accountability to the court

      Try again please

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    27. Re:Globalization + due process by Cramer · · Score: 1
      (btw, it's an 83 page report.)
      • Thus, an entity is a telecommunications carrier under the Communications Act only if it provides point-to-point transmission of information, "without change in the form or content of the information," on a common carrier basis.(p.11)
      This has been true for some time -- even before CALEA. Thus, your ISP is a "telecommunications carrier" as per the Communications Act ("common carrier" aside.) And your e-mail, p2p downloads, VoIP, remote desktop, etc. are all "telecommunications" and thus legally subject to a wire tap. Before you run off complaining that ISP's aren't "telecommunications carriers"...

      CALEA's definitions are even broader:
      • thereby making clear that CALEA is not confined to voice telephony, but rather extends to "any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system."[31](p.12)
      Further:
      • Whether broadband access providers are engaged in the transmission of communications on a common carrier basis, and hence whether they qualify as "telecommunications carriers" under the Communications Act, is a matter of ongoing dispute.[46] But as noted above, a provider that is engaged in the transmission or switching of wire or electronic communications need not be doing so on a common carrier basis in order to qualify as a "telecommunications carrier" under CALEA. Instead, as long as the service is a replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service, Section 102(8)(B)(ii) of CALEA empowers the Commission to bring the service and its providers within the scope of CALEA where the public interest so warrants.[47](pp.23-24)
      As for "backdoors", this is non-sense; CALEA is very specific as to what information is reported and exactly how it is reports (the "J-STD".) The things that would require modification to be CALEA compliant are the hardware and software systems providing the communications service(s)... i.e. the phone switch (software/hardware upgrades), the switch vendor (CALEA reporting capabilities in the switching software), and the service provider (the telco knowing how to setup a CALEA compliant tap.) If the XBox can place direct, non-mediated, point-to-point "phone calls", then yes, it would be subject to CALEA, however this case is absurd as one of the ends would have to know of the tap in order to report on it; and any "backdoor" tap would be pretty obvious. In the mediated case where the XBox (Live) is connected through some server ("a service provider"), there is a clearly deliniated point for a non-obtrusive tap ("the service provider") and thus a need for that SP to be CALEA compliant.

      In the end, the chicken little's are reading far too much into this. CALEA pertains to telephony and has nothing to do with the FBI installing a packet sniffer on your cable modem or compeling your ISP to do so. Personally, I'm far more horrified by the "cost recovery" provisions. Never, ever, EVER, let telco's charge the customers for their upgrades; they unfailingly screw the customers for decades. In. Every. Single. Case. (At least the FCC mandated a 5year limit for Local Number Portability cost recovery. And yes, I'm watching my phone bill.)
    28. Re:Globalization + due process by Random+Guru+42 · · Score: 1

      That's not why you're not supposed to read it. You're supposed to simply accept whatever the government tells you is in there. Anything else is thoughtcrime.

      --
      Christopher S. 'coldacid' Charabaruk -- coldacid.net
  6. The law, anyone? by SunPin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What happens if they don't comply? This is a serious case of "resistance is futile." Time Warner and the FBI are just playing their proper roles. Congress is the group that needs a clue.

    --
    Laws are for people with no friends.
    1. Re:The law, anyone? by nysus · · Score: 1

      Um, it's the President the overseas the FBI. Their in the Executive branch, remember?

      --

      ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

    2. Re:The law, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would think that is his point. The FBI is only enforcing laws created by the Legislative branch. It is not their job to create laws or overturn laws (which is the judicial branch's responsibility). You can't whine about the laws to the FBI. Write your senator instead.

    3. Re:The law, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I smell conspiracy theory here. It's just another attempt of gonverment to subdue our rights. What about imploying proper security measures to airports(well granted now they somewhat do now) and/or train stations? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa why do that when we can instead use our power to subdue the rights of every citizen in the country!

      I'll end it here or I'll never end it what I have to say about our government ;)

    4. Re:The law, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, and no FBI agent has ever asked Congress to give them more power to investigate or get rid of pesky red tape, such as warrants.

    5. Re:The law, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give one example where this has happened? I can guarantee you that FBI agents have never willingly gone to Congress for anything.

    6. Re:The law, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Except the FBI has been lobbying Congress for laws like this.

      It's like the local cops saying "we don't make the laws, just enforce them," then as soon as someobody proposes drug legalization they're the first ones jumping up and protesting.

  7. What about satellite ISP? by YetAnotherAnonymousC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the article mentions new laws for cable and DSL. I wonder if they have covered their bases with wiretap laws for satellite ISPs?
    I know little about how staellite internet access is set up beyond the cost and latency specs. Anyone know if there's less/more/similar difficulty involved something like direcway traffic? I would imagine they can still stick something like our friend "carnivore" at the direcway base station?

    1. Re:What about satellite ISP? by DR+SoB · · Score: 1

      _EVERY_ Satellite used for communication purposes has Echechlon and/or Carnivore watching. Time magazine had a good article on the setup, if only I could find it.

      (Bring on the doubters!!!)

      --
      Mod +5 Drunk
  8. Get Bush Out! by nysus · · Score: 0, Insightful

    This news is good incentive to get out and vote in November.

    --

    ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

    1. Re:Get Bush Out! by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You seriously think any democratic candidate is going to CHANGE this? They're getting even bigger kickbacks from the media companies than the current administration.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    2. Re:Get Bush Out! by JosKarith · · Score: 0

      And that's gonna do what exactly? I mean it's not as if the federal agencies actually _listen_ to their Commander-in-Chief now is it.
      It's like expecting Mi5 over here to alter their operating procedures just cos' of a little thing like a change of government.
      Though whoever gets in has got to be more left-wing than our current supposedly "socialist" dictat^H^H^H government.
      Jos

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    3. Re:Get Bush Out! by Boanerge · · Score: 1

      You have got to be kidding. It takes a court ordered search warrant just like it always has. This is merely the government keeping up with the technology criminals are using.

    4. Re:Get Bush Out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey you dumb shit, this is a 1994 law. Do you happen to recall who was in office then?

  9. That's why I use DECNET for my networking needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm really lonely since all I can talk to are my other friends who have VAX & VMS in their basement, but by golly nobody is wiretapping me!
    None of this Tee Cee Pee Eye Pee for me!

    Thomas

  10. Alright, I understand the privacy issue... by ERJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But is this really Time Warners fault? They are making provisions to comply with a law. Yes, it does not yet apply to them, but there is a good chance that it will and they are preparing for that. Shouldn't the real issue here be with the law, not the company?

    1. Re:Alright, I understand the privacy issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They are making provisions to comply with a law.


      It's not a law, it's a proposed law. Doing a preemptive strike on privacy does not equate to lawful compliance.

      just my sqrt(0.004) worth
    2. Re:Alright, I understand the privacy issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a fourth amendment issue, not a privacy issue. The constant use of the word privacy as a synonym for the forth amendment is either ignorance or conscious propaganda.

    3. Re:Alright, I understand the privacy issue... by Greenisus · · Score: 1

      From what little I know about satellite Internet, you have to use a modem for upstream traffic, so that wouldn't be very helpful.

    4. Re:Alright, I understand the privacy issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think you mean sqrt(0.0004)

    5. Re:Alright, I understand the privacy issue... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > From what little I know about satellite Internet, you have to use a modem for upstream traffic,

      Not any more. That was the case a few years ago.

  11. Amazing. by musingmelpomene · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Megacorporations, for once, have amazing power to do a huge amount of good for freedom in this country - by refusing to comply. They wield enough political power to shut this ridiculous new measure down. Their "pull" could be used to make sure this law never took effect.

    But instead, they're kowtowing to the government, ensuring that we lose another of the few shreds of privacy we had left.

    Organized resistance by individuals is great - but organized resistance by corporations (who should realize that, with all the corporate scandals, may be hurting themselves by giving more wiretap power to the government) would be fantastic and pretty much unstoppable.

    Let's see a show of corporate brute force! Who's with me?

    1. Re:Amazing. by cybermace5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Be careful what you wish for.

      --
      ...
    2. Re:Amazing. by RLiegh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However, megacorporations -by nature of their international status- do not feel any moral obligation.

      Also, given the hefty $ handouts to the corporations from the government, it's not likely that any of them are giong to stand up for the little guy, either.

      What's good for the government, is good for the coporations, what's good for the corporations, is good for the government. We do not figure into it. At all.

    3. Re:Amazing. by musingmelpomene · · Score: 1
      Stand up for the little guy, hell.

      Those corporations are corrupt to the core, and it strikes me that wiretaps being made more easy might have negative effects on their bottom line and on the bottoms of the executives (once they get sent to "federal pound you in the ass prison").

      I think it's a matter of rational self interest for 'em.

    4. Re:Amazing. by seanmcelroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Organizations are powerful in this regard, but by taking voluntary measures, even if they are to the detriment to the consumer, they can show due dilegence both in court cases that relate to criminal activities that occur over their networks and for public relation issues that call for increased monitoring.

      Also, by taking such preemptive actions, they may offset legislative controls which would in the end be more costly to implement. God knows I'd pick voluntary measures over the hours I spend trying to figure out how to comply with vague Congressional regulations and rules.

      (I for one will be switching to DSL. I believe my money talks, and I'll send e-mails letting corporate management know why they lost my $420/year in fees. If enough people did this, the populace could become just as powerful of a force as any organization or government agency.)

      --
      Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. -Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
    5. Re:Amazing. by Ytsejam-03 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Great idea, but how exactly to you plan to motivate these corporations to use their "pull" with the government? Corporations are in business to make money, and unless money is involved then they won't do a thing. Why take a business risk by refusing to comply with the law if you have nothing to gain from it?

      Sure, all of us in the Slashdot crowd can "vote with our wallets," and switch from Time/Warner to some other ISP that respects our privacy. But chances are that Joe Sixpack is not going to know or care what Time Warner is doing, and there are a lot more Joe Sixpacks out there than Slashdotters.

    6. Re:Amazing. by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Megacorporations, for once, have amazing power to do a huge amount of good for freedom in this country - by refusing to comply.

      Oh god no. The day corporations stop complying with the laws you don't like is the day they'll stop complying with the laws you do like.

      Environmental regulations? Out the window. OSHA laws? Gone. Child labor? Hiya kids, grab a pick and head to the mines. We can go back to the early part of the century when companies could spy on their workers' private lives in order to ensure they were living "morally".

    7. Re:Amazing. by musingmelpomene · · Score: 1

      They already DO ignore a lot of those laws. Bribery and corruption is rampant. And the one time they have a chance to say no in a GOOD way, they refuse it.

    8. Re:Amazing. by musingmelpomene · · Score: 1

      As I said above, I think it will hurt the assets of the companies and the asses of their CEOs (that "federal pound you in the ass prison" thing again) when they give the government unrestricted wiretap power - imagine the potential exposure of corporate corruption! I'd imagine these companies have quite a bit to hide, more than Joe Sixpack ever would.

    9. Re:Amazing. by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      It didn't stop Martin Luther King Junior when the FBI came to him about his adultery, I really doubt it will stop J Random CEO...especially when J Random CEO can easily make a "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" type of arrangement.

    10. Re:Amazing. by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We can go back to the early part of the century when companies could spy on their workers' private lives in order to ensure they were living "morally".

      "We strive to be a drug-free workplace."

    11. Re:Amazing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would corporations want to fight unfettered wiretap access? They are proving already that they want it badly. Just look at what the RIAA is doing to users of Kazaa and other P2P software. This is only the beginning.

    12. Re:Amazing. by UpLateDrinkingCoffee · · Score: 1
      We can go back to the early part of the century when companies could spy on their workers' private lives in order to ensure they were living "morally".

      I think we are there... I'm looking for a job for the first time since 9/11 and it seems pretty standard for companies to request a release of almost any kind of information they could use to determine your "morality". Ok, background checks are nothing new, but now companies are demanding the right to re-check this information any time they well please... they are also making use of credit reports, and associated "character reports". I don't know what kind of information these things collect, but this is scary stuff indeed. Does the equivalent to a credit score exist for "character"?

    13. Re:Amazing. by twbecker · · Score: 1

      (I for one will be switching to DSL. I believe my money talks, and I'll send e-mails letting corporate management know why they lost my $420/year in fees. If enough people did this, the populace could become just as powerful of a force as any organization or government agency.)

      You might want to RTFA. ". . . the FBI has made public a far-reaching proposal to require all broadband Internet providers--including cable modem and digital subscriber line (DSL) [emphasis mine] companies--to restructure their networks to support easy wiretapping by police."

      Is it really worth going through the hassle of changing ISPs when whomever you change to is likely to follow suit in short order?

      --
      "The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
    14. Re:Amazing. by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      Those corporations are corrupt to the core, and it strikes me that wiretaps being made more easy might have negative effects on their bottom line and on the bottoms of the executives (once they get sent to "federal pound you in the ass prison").

      Actually, I'm thinking that some of those executives are thinking: "I can listen to anything any of the employees are saying, especially that bastard down the hall who is trying to get my job? Cool!"

    15. Re:Amazing. by Rallion · · Score: 1

      It's not the same. What you're talking about is publicly and openly screaming, "No." That's a lot different than quiet circumvention.

    16. Re:Amazing. by Ytsejam-03 · · Score: 1

      Certainly corporations are motivated to protect their assets, they're just not as motivated to protect ours. I don't think it will be a problem for companines to protect their own assets and still give the appearance of compliance with the law. They already do this today.

    17. Re:Amazing. by eamonman · · Score: 1

      Last I heard however, was that your average working geek pays their ISP for service, and they leave that ISP for another one if they don't like what their current one is doing. Now, one pissed off person's subscription isn't important to your average multi-national corp, but if people start having their rights tweeked, people will notice. AOL and Road Runner customers be forewarned.

      --
      0- Eamonman Proud member of DNRC
    18. Re:Amazing. by Dave3.14159 · · Score: 1
      Let's not get too carried away. Do you really think that child labor laws are an important reason why we don't have much child labor? Or OSHA laws the reason that we have relatively safe workplaces?

      Would *you* let your son or daughter leave school to work at age 10? Perhaps so, but I notice that many people support their children, to some degree, all the way through college -- insulating them from the workpace way beyond what child labor laws require.

      Would *you* be willing to work at a job where there is a 10% annual mortality rate? I think that you could find one or two workers out there who might think twice about taking even comparatively low-mortality jobs like working on oil rigs.

      I usually wear a coat in cold weather. If there were a regulation requiring me to do so, would it be correct to assume that I was wearing it because of a regulation?

      Obviously some regulations have some effect but the sky isn't going to fall if we get rid of a few, either. Usually, laws don't get passed if they run contrary to what most people want to do anyway.

    19. Re:Amazing. by God+Takeru · · Score: 1

      Laws are by and large reactionary to the times. With the exception of things like laws against obvious crime (theft, murder), most of these 'just' laws are the result of people doing things against them.

      Child labor laws were passed specifically because there were people in this country who could not afford to feed themselves and their children unless they sent them off to work. They didn't necessarily want to, but they had no choice. Among poor families, it still goes on today at some levels (I know some very poor folk, for example, who have seven kids, and each works a paper route along with any other employment they might have, even those too young to 'work' technically, since paper routes are legal for kids under working age). Sure, the rich don't send their kids off to work-- if you're able to support your kid all the way through college without them putting in a dime, you're either pretty well off or amassing quite the debt-- but people back then with the money to keep their children at home did so as well.

      Now, the economy is tanking at current, and a lot of people are desparate for whatever they can get. Let this go on another ten years, and who knows, maybe we'll be back in that situation again. I know I'm being extreme, but I'm trying to illustrate the point of why these laws were passed. It's not just because it's "common sense." It goes the same for safe working conditions-- we have not always had the option of going to work somewhere safe, and if there are not laws in place to protect us, we cannot say that we always will.

      --
      "Anonymous cowards are just K-whores afraid of their accounts being modded down." - Bob the O (me)
    20. Re:Amazing. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      They'd have to balance that out against "The feds can listen to anything I say? Especially that super-secret project that would get the entire board arrested, deported, and executed, maybe not even in that order?"

    21. Re:Amazing. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > it strikes me that wiretaps being made more easy might have negative effects on their bottom line

      Wait, no... These wiretaps are to monitor CITIZENS, they would never look for anything bad in corporations. That gets swept under the rug, as long as that company gave contributions to the administration's election campaign.

    22. Re:Amazing. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > "We strive to be a drug-free workplace."

      Insightful? Hell no. All that means is "We hope our workers don't come to work smacked out of their minds." Doesn't say anything about after they leave their workplace.

    23. Re:Amazing. by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      They'd have to balance that out against "The feds can listen to anything I say? Especially that super-secret project that would get the entire board arrested, deported, and executed, maybe not even in that order?"

      Not a problem when the company is controlling the connections to the fed's "sooper-sekret" spying equipment. The feds will hear only what the execs want them to hear.

    24. Re:Amazing. by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      That generally means they'll make you pee in a cup to see if you've done anything in the last month.

  12. encrypted by millahtime · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, how do you tap something with 128bit or better encryption???? What happens when it gets to 512bit encryption???? Can the FBI really decrypt that to tap it???

    1. Re:encrypted by wtlssndlssfthlss · · Score: 0

      If there's a way to encrypt something, there's a way to decrypt it. Same goes, no matter how many nits your key is. The FBI definitely has the technology, they want backdoors into the system so they don't have to spend the time cracking the codes.

      --



      Karma: Terrible
    2. Re:encrypted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, it only takes a couple of hours to decrypt 128 bit SSL. Not quite real time, but enough if you have all the access you need.

      And if they have the initial handshake, it'll take 0 time since they have the keys. Encryption is worthless if keys aren't traded securely.

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

      Those top secret quantum computers can crack it all anyway...

    4. Re:encrypted by Phrack · · Score: 1

      Sure. It's called adding a keystroke logger to your machine.

      --
      Dump the IRS - http://www.fairtax.org
    5. Re:encrypted by October_30th · · Score: 1
      What happens when it gets to 512bit encryption????

      a) "Attention citizen. Encryption has been made illegal. Stop using it or face serious consequences."

      b) "Attention citizen - for your own safety, submit the encryption key to us for safekeeping."

      c) Any encryption is vulnerable if the computer can be accessed physically (for the installation of keyboard taps etc.).

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    6. Re:encrypted by gnuzip · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think it'd be pretty difficult or impossible (depending on what you do) to encrypt all internet transactions. Email should be pretty straightforward, but what do you do about HTTP, FTP, IRC, and all the other protocols which are completely built around unencrypted transmission? The best rule to go by, it seems, is: "If you don't want someone to read it, don't send/receive it".

    7. Re:encrypted by millahtime · · Score: 1

      "It's called adding a keystroke logger to your machine."

      Actually that is different than a wiretap. With the right court orders they can do that now. Totally diffent issue.

    8. Re:encrypted by kableh · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's what stunnel is for.

    9. Re:encrypted by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      That's a totally different type of threat. It's not something they can passively use on everybody. Adding a keystroke logger requires that they commit to breaking and entering, and all the legal checks and risks of detection that entails.

      Of course, when they can fly some invisible nano-bug spy into your house, I'm going to have to change my opinion on the matter... Bloody hell, is that going to complicate things. (Remember, if government gets technology like that, then crooks, voyeurs, etc will have it too.)

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    10. Re:encrypted by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

      You can encrypt HTTP, FTP, and hopefully (if this wiretapping crap ever went into effect) they'll come out with an encrypted IRC.

      I know if it goes into effect, I personally will start using WASTE and Freenet a lot more often. I won't really communicate with those who aren't encrypted on the other end.

      They might be able to wiretap, but they'll be screwed once everything IS encrypted (and it will be).

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    11. Re:encrypted by darksoulz · · Score: 1

      You can encrypt HTTP, FTP, and hopefully (if this wiretapping crap ever went into effect) they'll come out with an encrypted IRC.

      IRC already can be. More ircds are starting to support SSL on alternative ports.

    12. Re:encrypted by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      And if they have the initial handshake, it'll take 0 time since they have the keys. Encryption is worthless if keys aren't traded securely.

      this is not true if you are using some sort of public key encryption. i will admit my knowledge of ssl is not very great, so i don't really know how it works, but by trading only public keys, it means you can impersonate someone else, but it doesn't mean you can decrypt what they are saying

    13. Re:encrypted by TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R · · Score: 1
      Can the FBI really decrypt that to tap it???

      Sure, but all you'd have to do is to put a copywrite on your internet transmissions, and then sue the FBI under the DMCA!

      ...who says its all bad? ;)

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    14. Re:encrypted by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Don't know about IRC but HTTP and FTP are simple: SSL. There's even ports for it, 443 and 990 respectively.

    15. Re:encrypted by Wybaar · · Score: 1

      If you were a criminal, would you be willing to bet the NSA couldn't decrypt it? Admittedly, if you went to a ridiculously high encryption level (say several thousand bits) you could be reasonably sure they couldn't ... but you couldn't be certain.

      --
      Y|
    16. Re:encrypted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Admittedly, if you went to a ridiculously high encryption level (say several thousand bits) you could be reasonably sure they couldn't ... but you couldn't be certain.


      This is a bunch of crap. On a fundamental complexity level, much more than 512 key bits in a strong symmetric cipher has rapidly diminishing returns. There would be no point in going from, say 1024 bits, to 8192 bits. The NSA (or anyone) could not brute force the key either way. They would attack it using some vulnerability in the encryption algorithm itself. The tractability of exploiting these vulnerabilities usually has very little to do with the key length.

    17. Re:encrypted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      > Can the FBI really decrypt that to tap it?

      What you're missing is that even the existence of communication is important information in itself (traffic analysis). If all of a sudden Osama, Inc. (a wholly-owned subidiary of Haliburton & Cheney Oil Co. :-) sent a flurry of messages (all 1024 bit GPG encoded), what does that say? What if the last time that happened, a bomb blew up the Bridge over the River Kwai (triple-seekrit movie reference) the next day?
      Messages don't have to be decrypted to be useful to a surveilling entity. They don't have to be encrypted (in your sense) at all in the first place. Ever hear of code words?

    18. Re:encrypted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just have everyone setup opportunistic IPsec tunnels with each other and all data passing through any IP protocol would be encrypted to anyone who also is running IPSec that way.

    19. Re:encrypted by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "what do you do about HTTP, FTP, IRC, and all the other protocols which are completely built around unencrypted transmission?"

      Freenet.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    20. Re:encrypted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YDRC. (You don't recall correctly.)

      128-bit encryption, using 3DES, AES, or otherwise, is extremely difficult to break. In fact, it should take over the age of the universe to break it, even with technology from 50 years from now (unless we get quantum computers. Then we're all screwed!)

    21. Re:encrypted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can impersonate someone then you can act as a man in the middle during the conversation and hence be able to see what is being said as well as make a few substitutions if you like...

    22. Re:encrypted by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Yes, because freenet is a replacement for all those protocols. Haha.

      You could try something like Metanet, which puts the encryption and anonymity at layer 2, where it belongs. That way, it's simple to do TCPI/IP like you would with any other modern network, and leave the 1970ish "let's swap files with zmodem" bullshit to the tinfoil beany people.

  13. Verint AKA Comverse InfoSys by ka9dgx · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Oh great, more contracts for Verint A.K.A. Comverse InfoSys, the Israeli company suspected of leaving backdoors for themselves. How much more can be possibly do to make ourselves puppets for other nations?

    --Mike--

    1. Re:Verint AKA Comverse InfoSys by the+Man+in+Black · · Score: 5, Funny

      How much more can be possibly do to make ourselves puppets for other nations?

      Well, we could outsource all of our coding work overseas, putting actual coding and QA in the hands of a foreign government. That'd be a good start.

      What? What's everyone looking at?

      Oh.

  14. There is nothing about invasion here by arivanov · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Move along people.

    It was possible to wiretap anything 10 years ago. At about that time Cisco started shipping some cards that were too fast for capturing traffic on them in real time.

    In 3-4 more years they deployed CEF which made NATing traffic to a remote server for collection not work either. Search the net for people swearing about D.O.S.track not working anymore.

    The only reason for doing so was profit and that their gear did not have enough CPU. There was nothing about any bloody privacy.

    As for one thing I will be very happy if the routers will be forced to have a working debug mode by law.

    --
    Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
    http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    1. Re:There is nothing about invasion here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was possible to torture and rape thousands of years ago. What is your point?

      The rest of your post is just babble.

    2. Re:There is nothing about invasion here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, too fast to capture.. I suppose the Cisco uses magic packet-fu to route the data without needing to actually know it's there / where it's going. Or maybe it's a Spooky action at a distance kinda thing

  15. Invasion of Privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Invasion of privacy anyone?

    Hurm... a quote from AskCALEA

    "The law further defines the existing statutory obligation of telecommunications carriers to assist Law Enforcement in executing electronic surveillance pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization." (Emphasis mine)

    Has pretty much the same restrictions as a phone tap, just applied to different media.

    And you if think ** anything ** going across the internet is private you are quite mistaken.

    1. Re:Invasion of Privacy? by timeOday · · Score: 1
      The big problem I see is the "... or other lawful authorization" part. From the EFF's analysis of the partriot act:
      # 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 upon 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.

      The basic problem here is loss of judicial oversight.

      And you if think ** anything ** going across the internet is private you are quite mistaken.
      Well, there's no technical measure stopping people from climbing onto my roof and looking down into the bathroom through the skylight, either. But there's a law against it, which covers the police too unless there's legal justification. I like that law.
  16. Encryption by lofoforabr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That kind of thing won't work. At least not for the more sophisticated criminal networks, who will surely use encryption to do away with wiretapping.
    It's like banning guns in the hope that criminals won't get them either. They will still do what they are used to do, but by other means.

    1. Re:Encryption by millahtime · · Score: 1, Funny

      "That kind of thing won't work."

      Who says this will just be used on sophisticated criminals. They already are useing encryption and are already getting around phone bugging. This would help them catch the dumb ones. And there are a lot of those.

    2. Re:encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stealth24 seems to spread your surfing all around the world secure but does not affect p2p or ftp to my knowledge

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

      Here's an idea, somebody get a LOT of bandwidth, and I do mean a lot, setup VPN servers, that way, from your house or whererever you are, you can log into this service and have it not keep any logs, then all your traffic is encrypted up to the point of the server, the server is then running NAT and everything you do appears to come from the service. hmm, I'm sure such a service would get shut down, but this way, only traffic from the sites to the vpn server is cleartext, anything from the remote server to your house (the main trackable part) is encrypted, lets see a cable company snoop through 3DES encryption in real time, then again, we all know that the government has computers more powerful that any of us could dream, so maybe they can, who knows...

      Another benefit of this would be the weak security in WEP wouldnt matter on your wireless net, because youre creating a secondary encrypted tunnel inside the WEP, so let the war-drivers crack your wep, they still cant do shit if you only allow vpn tunnels out of your router to a specific server and they dont know what the server is and cant watch your vpn.

      But this brings up another question that I've been asking myself for a while, if you have a Public/Private key swap while authenticating to VPN or HTTPS sites... those keys are sent in clear text are they not, so here you have a key being sent to your client saying use this key to send me your key and authenticate... You can pick those up, and decrypt which essentially makes these keys useless right? the only true un-breakable encryption would seem to be a pre-shared (no key exchange) high-bit encryption which defeats the purpose of the public sites as you would have to or know who owns each and every server you want to talk to personally and off-line so that your key is not found..

  17. Tired of it. by robslimo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good Dog. I'm tired of this erosion of my rights. Yeah, 9-11 was a Bad Thing (tm) and something had to be done, but the situation is getting out of hand. It ain't just GWB, either. The lawmakers as a whole are either reacting to or catering to the fear factor.

    Wiretapping has worked pretty well in the past... but with the proper legal steps taken first (court orders, whatever). Even this has been abused, but I can't see how wholesale wiretapping can be a good thing, ever.

    1. Re:Tired of it. by nomadic · · Score: 1

      It ain't just GWB, either. The lawmakers as a whole are either reacting to or catering to the fear factor.

      A lot of it IS GWB though. Him and his little cadre of ultraright think tank buddies. Vote for Kerry, send a letter to Kerry's campaign saying that if he pulls the same stuff you'll vote against him next time.

    2. Re:Tired of it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9-11 was bad but what bothers me about that was the lack of security measure taking at airports. Before 9-11, as was shown to us, any joe smoe could go on a plane with a concealed weapon.

      After 9-11 now they charge a protection fee for the job they should of done in the first place.

      Government should wake up and realize although its a sad fact of reality, public places need to be a little more secure than what they are now. Almost seems like there using this terrorist excuse as a way to finally subdue our rights.

      Sorry for the rant.

    3. Re:Tired of it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting real tired of this 9/11 thing.
      most of the people killed in this disaster were not even American citizens and 99% of the world cares less about it than we pretend to do.
      It was the WORLD TRADE CENTER and the only people that give a shit are U.S.
      I propose the next WORLD TRADE CENTER be built in Spain then perhaps when it's targeted next the Spaniards, Germans, French, Russians, might give a shit but I doubt it.
      While were at it let's move the U.N. to Ethiopia that way when suicide bombers in U-Haul trucks pull up and level three city blocks nobody has to give a shit.

    4. Re:Tired of it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting real tired of this 9/11 thing.
      most of the people killed in this disaster were not even American citizens and 99% of the world cares less about it than we pretend to do.
      It was the WORLD TRADE CENTER and the only people that give a shit are U.S.
      I propose the next WORLD TRADE CENTER be built in Spain then perhaps when it's targeted next the Spaniards, Germans, French, Russians, might give a shit but I doubt it.
      While were at it let's move the U.N. to Ethiopia that way when suicide bombers in U-Haul trucks pull up and level three city blocks nobody has to give a shit.


      are you brain dead? Most of the workers at the WTC were American. Check out their names and where they lived if you don't believe me. Maybe you are getting really tired of this 9/11 thing. Maybe you don't live anywhere near where it happened, or you just don't care. Will you care when it's you, or someone you love who gets up in the morning, goes to work, and gets killed for no good reason?

      Or then will you be calling for better border security? Will you be saying it's ok to have the Feds get ISP logs with a warrent? It would be a different tune if it were someone you knew right?

      I don't know what is more sad, that 9/11 happened, or that people don't care because it had nothing to do with anyone they knew.

    5. Re:Tired of it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      send a letter to Kerry's campaign saying that if he pulls the same stuff you'll vote against him next time.

      You mean like vote for the Patriot Act & snoop on his campaign workers?

      If he does any of that, I'll be sure to not vote for him.

      www.lp.org

    6. Re:Tired of it. by rhizome · · Score: 1

      Uh no. 9/11 didn't happen because of anything the citizens of the US did. I certainly don't see any changes in foreign policy in response to 9/11 that would eliminate the possibility of a local attack and there's for sure not going to be the equivalent of street cameras in the stock exchanges, boardrooms of the Fortune 500, and the Presidential Cabinet meetings. That's where the seeds were sown.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    7. Re:Tired of it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :: The lawmakers as a whole are either reacting to or catering to the fear factor ::

      Mmmmmm Fear Factor, hey here's an idea for that show, make the contestants sit in a room as long as they can with GWB listening to him... I know i'd lose that in 10 minutes as I cant stand stupid people and dont seem to have the ability to "switch" off my hearing.

      AAAAHHHHH IT HURTS JUST TO THINK ABOUT IT!

  18. Come To My Country! by osewa77 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, guys, you prefer an environment where nothing is regulated, where criminals can do their jobs in peace without their privacy being invaded by the 'big bad guys' in law enforcement. Well, come to my country; we are new to democracy, I am sure you would feel more at home!

    1. Re:Come To My Country! by danlyke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So in your country, are the criminals and the law enforcement often one and the same?

      Yep. Thought so.

    2. Re:Come To My Country! by mdielmann · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmm, would that be Columbia, or Cuba?

      There are two extremes in governmental interference. No control at all, and you're at the mercy of the bullies, whether they be big business, organized crime, or social pressure (maintaining the 'status quo'). Too much control, and you're at the mercy of the government, and you may not be able to tell the difference compared to the other extreme. But there's this medium, where government does those things that individuals can't do easily, like provide a police force, and maintain infrastructure. Stray too far from that medium, and that thing we call freedom disappears.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    3. Re:Come To My Country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the fact that every corporation that operates in third world countries has a budget for payoffs to gov officials, I can't see why we shouldn't move to your country. Your no better or worse than India, Pakistan or many of the other countries we do business with.
      It's cheaper to payoff local gov officials than it is to actually pay the people that design and create a product.
      Despot's are cheaper than the dirt under their heal.

    4. Re:Come To My Country! by financialguy · · Score: 1
      It's nice to see a post on the upside of wiretapping in its various forms. While everyone should be concerned about the government's (or anyone else for that matter) ability to tap into our communications, I for one think we need to face the realities of dealing with the modern terrorist.

      The bottom line of all of these discussions and talk about how this and other Patriot Act provisions, etc. are a huge infringment on our civil liberties is that the only way to completely guarantee our civil liberties is to have no civil authorities. 99% of us wouldn't want this, because we know the inevitable result.

      The truth of the matter is that there is a gray area where most of us want to be, and just becuase we step a little more towards one side today does *not* ensure that we end up living in a 1984-like world.

  19. Business idea. by grub · · Score: 4, Interesting


    I'm convinced that a promising business venture would be a non-US ISP which would sell IPSec tunnels to anyone. The termination point would be outside the US and would preserve privacy.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Business idea. by j-turkey · · Score: 1
      I'm convinced that a promising business venture would be a non-US ISP which would sell IPSec tunnels to anyone. The termination point would be outside the US and would preserve privacy

      You took the words right out of my mouth. However, I think that HavenCo on the Principality of Sealand may have beaten you to the punch. However, I think that there is some question as to their sovereignty as a nation.

      Provided that they have the proper bandwidth to handle this, I'd love to proxy most of my communications through them (or anyone offshore). It's a wrothy business idea to set up a pay proxy. Insert your Cryptonomicon parallel here.

      --

      -Turkey

  20. Cable vs DSL by dealsites · · Score: 1

    It seems like cable providers are clamping down on a lot of things. Wiretapping, hidden bandwidth limits, etc...

    I'm sure all this can be applied to DSL users too, but I haven't ever seen it mentioned anywhere.

    --
    Real-time deal updates from many sources. About 400 deals a day!

  21. Time for a switch by Muddie · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I think it's time to call this section, "Your Lack of Rights Online".

    *shakes head*
    Sad, frustrated, and furrrrriously angry.

    1. Re:Time for a switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why not email bill o`rielly and tell him.....

  22. Questions... by vchoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Quote: "Legal experts said the 85-page filing includes language that could be interpreted as forcing companies to build back doors into everything..."

    How would they enforce this with regards to encryption technologies?
    My point is if people have something to hide, then they will use whatever mechanism there is out there to hide it. Can authorities really achieve their goals by simply imposing wiretapping laws on broadband providers?

    1. Re:Questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For many purposes they just may be interested in
      who is talking to whom and being able to decrypt
      traffic may not be that important.

    2. Re:Questions... by Chasqui · · Score: 1
      From the Act:

      (3) ENCRYPTION- A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government's ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication.

      So, as has been mentioned before, this will be used to catch the dumb criminals. Wire-tapping ISP's seems a pre-emptive strike against VOIP. If you cannot wire-tap ISP's you cannot "tap a phone" that is VOIP - which may/will become ubiquitous.

      --
      my cube has a window...
  23. Go for it by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 0
    I think you should violently revolt. Right now. Go ahead. Do it. The Birdman command you!

    I'll be waiting over here, sipping my caramel mocha latte.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
    1. Re:Go for it by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      I put that clause in there for the "ballot box, soap box, bullet box" crowd. I don't believe in violent revolution (or non-violent revolution, for that matter) -hence the question.

    2. Re:Go for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i wouldn`t drink that if i were you . bruce the "gay" worker that made your drink... well that`s not just foam your drinking from your caramel mocha latte. but it is hand made.....

  24. I for one by Adrick42 · · Score: 1

    prefered when the Illiminati ran the country!

    1. Re:I for one by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > prefered when the Illiminati ran the country!

      Wow, what a horrible site. When someone claims the Y2K bug was a conspiracy, they've got problems.

  25. Kerry supports privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    LOL!

    You're seriously delluded.

  26. would be required to by Phrack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given some previous announcements of Time Warner to get into the phone biz (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/36287 for one example), they would already be required to comply with wiretap laws. Nothing surprising here.

    Don't blame the provider for the law. Blame your lawmaker.

    --
    Dump the IRS - http://www.fairtax.org
  27. None of their business. Period. by adpsk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's none of their business what I or anybody else does with a network. Just another great reason to encrypt your traffic. Seems like their just shooting themselves in the foot to me. My first instinct is to say let them go for it, but then the idea of "your tax dollars at work" comes to mind and on second thought I think it's a rather lame waste of money as all they'll see from me is line noise ;)

    1. Re:None of their business. Period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it is "None of their business. Period.", how will Spam laws be enforced?

      The problem is not with taping the Internet in addition to regular phone lines, it is how easy it is to get a warant to do it.

    2. Re:None of their business. Period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are badly mistaken in saying "how easy it is to get a warrant." It is not easy to get a warrant to do a wire-tap, and furthermore, law enforcement agencies have to have considerable evidence that you are in fact violating the law AND that there is no other means to gather evidence that would hold up in court.

  28. I use Time Warner Cable by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    and I like this law. In fact, I LOVE all laws and restrictions passed by the BuSh administration and CONgress. I also LOVE corporations, and the idea that the government knows everything I say, think, and do. I love the government, especially the FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF, FTC, SEC, and mostly, the white house.

    [sic]

    --
    "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
  29. Cameras in their homes... by ferralis · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Hell, we've already got 'em (webcams)... and in our phones. And we're doing it to ourselves! Microsoft even wants to sell us a cool toy to make it easier.

    Some people are even using 'em to record themselves performing illegal acts. I'm against further invasion of privacy, but if we continue in this declared war without a visible end we'll see more and more of this. At no time in the US does the Executive Branch of government have more time than when the country is at war- hence the "war on drugs" and "war on terror" which cause people to let their common sense blow away on the winds of excessive brain-dead so-called patriotism.

    Blech. Ok- now for the backlash!

    Turn on those webcams! Stream video of everyone's life into the public domain! Record EVERYTHING YOU SEE and do! The information glut we could generate would overwhelm any monitoring system that could come out, I'm thinking. :) With the increased visibility of conduct and day-by-day infractions, maybe we could effect some reforms. Kind of hard to complain about the splinter in someones eye when you can see the timber in your own on HDTV.

    An interesting novel, "Light of Other Days" by Arthur C Clarke and Stephen Baxter, explores the ramifications of such a system- most painful, but generally positive.

    Makes ya think, which is almost never a bad thing. :)

    --
    Any generalization is a stupid one.
    1. Re:Cameras in their homes... by surprise_audit · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Turn on those webcams! Stream video of everyone's life into the public domain! Record EVERYTHING YOU SEE and do!

      Better yet, point those webcams out the window and let "The Man" watch the cars going down your street... Out of focus, of course, because you wouldn't want to broadcast someone's license plate... Let them watch your grass grow, or squirrels playing with their nuts in the trees...

    2. Re:Cameras in their homes... by rjelks · · Score: 1

      I remember really liking "Light of Other Days". Is that the one with the "nulls"?

    3. Re:Cameras in their homes... by ferralis · · Score: 1
      Nah, the one with the "Worm-Cam" where he develops a means of increasing the size of wormholes to allow information transmission, eventually creating open-ended (no receiver required) cameras that can see anywhere, anytime.

      Later the "anytime" becomes literal as the wormholes can potentially (according to some) exist anywhere and literally anywhen at either end.

      Not saying the story is plausible or even possible, but they do a great job of exploring the sociological impacts of such a discovery. Stuff like "what was really like?" and "How did really happen?".

      Fun stuff!

      --
      Any generalization is a stupid one.
    4. Re:Cameras in their homes... by rjelks · · Score: 1

      I loved that book. I was thinking of the 'nihlists' in the book. They were the fringe group that went "underground" to try to preserve their privacy. They wore masks and made up a language of "scaping at palms" to avoid being overheard. If you liked that, I'd try looking at Orson Card's "Pastwatch". That's probably my favorate timetravel/sci-fi book. /kind of going offtopic

    5. Re:Cameras in their homes... by senatorpjt · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine once said "Orwell was a bitter man, but he never thought we'd BUY the fucking telescreens"

    6. Re:Cameras in their homes... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Heh.

      Turn on those webcams! Stream video of everyone's life into the public domain! Record EVERYTHING YOU SEE and do! The information glut we could generate would overwhelm any monitoring system that could come out, I'm thinking. :)

      and also give the government another excuse to spend more money to hire more dweebs (TSA) to monitor our activities, because after all, you know, we *could* be having illegal oral sex in the kitchen....

      Not trolling, just pointing out that the effect of what you advocate could have a different result than what's intended. I do think that it's a very usable and even viable form of civil protest, especially if you can *guarantee* they have to monitor humdrum :)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  30. no good but echelon? by quelrods · · Score: 0

    Clearly the fbi is up to no good, yet again. But hasn't the nsa been able to do this for 10+ years due to echelon? Though, I fail to see how the government should be allowed to place the burden on isp's.

    --
    :(){ :|:&};:
  31. Applies to people outside the US too by myownkidney · · Score: 0
    As I am outside the US. But I do communicate a lot with people in the US. This means whatever I say can be wire tapped at the US end, encryption notwithstanding.

    And these intercepted communications can be passed on to other governments.

    Scary

  32. use encryption... by iwadasn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    OK, I'm officially the crackpot at work, because I tell them to USE ENCRYPTION! Encryption costs basically nothing, there's no reason why anyone would host a website that didn't use, or at least offer SSL. Everyone out there should use encryption for everything. Get rid of telnet, use ssh, and sftp rather than ftp. Use SSL on your websites, etc.... Encryption literally costs nothing, there is no advantage to not using it, WHY DON'T YOU USE IT? If you're too stupid to protect yourself when doing costs you nothing, then maybe you never really needed rights to begin with.

    I just don't understand. It's so incredibly easy to protect your rights in this area, do you want someone else to do it for you. Clicking a button renders all their BS moot. With the effort you spend complaining you could solve the problem, it's just a button click away.

    If you want untappable phones, use VPN to run your VOIP from another jurisdiction, simple as that.

    1. Re:use encryption... by pjt33 · · Score: 1
      Encryption literally costs nothing
      CPU cycles? Network traffic for key exchange?
    2. Re:use encryption... by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 4, Funny
      OK, I'm officially the crackpot at work...

      Damn. Everyone has a better job than me. :-(

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    3. Re:use encryption... by October_30th · · Score: 1
      If you're too stupid to protect yourself when doing costs you nothing, then maybe you never really needed rights to begin with.

      As soon as you can think of a good way of managing public keys and remembering sufficiently long passphrases without writing them down anywhere you might have a point.

      I don't use encryption in e-maisl because it's a hassle. My netbanking uses one-time pads and SSL. That works: just point and click in the browser and keep your list of numbers hidden somewhere.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    4. Re:use encryption... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sure would be nice if every server offered encrypted exchange of information, but I can't see it happening. I can hardly believe that all users and server administrators around the world would be willing to complicate the software with which they transmit and receive data over the internet by adding encryption functionality. It'd almost certainly slow everything down (how about slashdotting an http server that uses encryption?), and it might even put the server software itself in danger if the complex encryption modules contained security vulnerabilities.

      Also, how can you be sure that an encrypted server you have never spoken to before isn't a fake? Are you expected to develop some sort of web of trust?

      I fully support the use of encryption for person-to-person communications, but a completely encrypted internet seems highly unlikely.

    5. Re:use encryption... by iwadasn · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'm replying to my own.... here goes.....

      1) CPU cycles (client). This is a very low cost for most clients. Should not be significant on the client side, ergo, cost approaches zero.

      2) CPU cycles (server). This is generally fairly low, especially if you're doing any significant calculation as well. Servers are fairly fast now, should only rarely be a problem. If it is a problem, get a sun box with one of those crypto cards, problem solved. Cost here might be a little more than on the client, but shouldn't break the bank.

      3) CPU cycles (network). The overhead of encryption on the network is negligible. This is simply not a problem.

      4) Software complexity. Much of the software out there has it built in, you just have to use it. Java has SSL, free for anyone to use, web browsers have it, ftp clients generally have sftp, ditto for terminal clients, web servers all have it available. This is basically a non-issue unless you're rolling your own software, and if so, just use IPSec, or one of the above packages.

      5) Key management, this is why we have CAs. In addition, not really needed. Wiretapping is easy, performing a man in the middle attack is much more difficult. It at least raises the bar radically, and enormously increases the odds of getting caught.

      The basic idea is this, law enforcement should be hard. Just that simple. If it's hard, then people will reserve the sword of justice for serious crimes. If it's easy and cheap to prosecute people for Sodomy, sitting on milk crates, etc... then everyone has their own pet peeve that they'll want to enforce, and the budget will accomodate them all. If the FBI really wants your data, they'll break in and give you a keylogger keyboard. If they aren't willing to spend 10,000 to get your data, then it's probably just a fishing expidition, and not the legitimate domain of law enforcement anyway.

      This is what crypto is for. It won't really protect your data if the government really wants it, but in order to get it they have to really want it. They can't just hoover it all up and see who might have broken a law today, for future reference should you ever run for office, etc....

  33. Privacy is your problem by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    Privacy is your own responsibility. Even without the concern of government wiretaps, you have to assume that all your packets which pass through the public internet, may be watched by someone. Take away the government wiretap threat, and it's still irresponsible and reckless to not be using encryption.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  34. Re:Interesting Related Article - NOT WORK SAFE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, why do you have to post that? Not cool...

  35. How About Protection From Danger by nickasbob · · Score: 0, Insightful

    You know, I often hear people holler "invasion of privacy" everytime the government suggests that they may monitor communications. Does anyone stop to think that while they are monitoring your phone sex calls, they're also monitoring Abdul "bomber-of-buildings" Akmed? Some monitoring is necessary if we're ever going to be able to sleep soundly at night.

    1. Re:How About Protection From Danger by Fullmetal+Edward · · Score: 1

      Sorry but no, just hands down no. There are billions of people in the world, so we all run around going "SIEG HITLER!" "YAY 9-11 ROCKED!"? No. It may sound amazing but some of us arn't out to bomb American, but we're being accused of being criminals when we have done nothing. If I look at porn or play a game, it's MY business, I'm not looking at little girls, I'm not looking at anything illegal. Leave me be with your laws because I upset some cop in the street so he wants to try and get me back for it. Also note that if this happens then RIAA get more ammo then they ever need, they could accuse everyone of downloading music (alot of cases would be true). They take it to court, they get a phonetap put on, you just got busted and are paying them for more lawsuits..

      --
      --- [Insert intresting Sig here]
    2. Re:How About Protection From Danger by grunt107 · · Score: 1

      As long as government officials can justify the comm. monitor there is no issue. The bigger issue is now it takes heresay rather than tangible proof. If this is allowable, why not allow home video monitoring, and vehicle monitoring? Then, when all the cameras are everywhere, no crime could go unpunished since it would conceivably be stored somewhere. And I prefer video phone sex, anyway. "It's time to start skimming the gene pool"

    3. Re:How About Protection From Danger by Tekime · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be great if we could trust the US govt. that much? Unfortunately I feel hoodwinked by the entire Patriot trojan. There is no trust here...

    4. Re:How About Protection From Danger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An easy way not to get busted for downloading copyrighted material is to NOT download copyrighted material. You may not like to pay what the music companys charge for a CD, but that doesn't mean you can just take it.

    5. Re:How About Protection From Danger by nickasbob · · Score: 0

      Umm.. why is my comment listed as a troll? Is it because my opinion differs from the moderators?

  36. Daleks versus the Borg by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 5, Funny

    AOLTIMEWARNER: We are AOLTIMEWARNER. Resistance is futile.

    FBI: Exterminate! Exterminate!

    AOLTIMEWARNER: Your unique markets will be added to our own until all media is an even gray mass of mediocrity.

    FBI: Exterminate! Exterminate!

    AOLTIMEWARNER: And, um, we, uh, you know. Customer privacy and, um.

    FBI: The only interest we have in privacy is its total extermination!

    AOLTIMEWARNER: Yeeeah. Um, look, we're going to go over there for a while and-

    FBI: Obey all FBI commands! Obey instantly! Obey without question! Obey! Obey! Obey! Obey! Obey! Obey! Obey!

    AOLTIMEWARNER: Uh, OK.

    FCC: Breasts are evil!

    To quote the great Kurt Vonnegut, "...and so on."

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  37. These regulations are going to allow... by donnyspi · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...Gary Winston to spy on me now when I'm writing code. Then he's going to steal my work so he can finish Synapse.

  38. Revolution by ka9dgx · · Score: 1
    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John. F. Kennedy
    Things are going to change, people are fed up with the lies from the administration, and the lap dog press that lets them get away with it. If things don't get changed in a peaceful manner, it will get ugly.

    --Mike--

    1. Re:Revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      it will get ugly.

      Actually, as a non-American, I'd rather see the present administration carrying on than seeing a civil war in the USA. The political, economical and humanitarian fall-out would be on a scale never seen in the human history.

      Kerry's "foreign leaders want a change too"-stance, Soros and organizations like MoveOn playing around with the idea of foreign money for the anti-Bush camp is already worrying. A completely internal matter like US presidential elections are already leaking out to the rest of the world and that's not a good thing.

  39. Privacy? Over PUBLIC wires? by blcamp · · Score: 5, Insightful


    C'mon people.

    The internet is a PUBLIC network of public content. Where the hell does anyone get the idea that there is a concept of privacy involved here?

    (This is not intended to be sarcastic, rhetorical, nor trolling.)

    If you have (or seek) private information, encrypt it (or have it encrypted), (have it) wrap(ped) it in a .zip or other file, and encrypt the thing again.

    If you don't want the Government to watch what you are saying and/or doing, then don't give them anything to watch.

    This isn't a Bush or Ashcroft thing... this is a technology thing. Any time technology is seen as capable of doing something, ANYTHING, you can bet someone will try do do so... without regard to whom is in charge.

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
    1. Re:Privacy? Over PUBLIC wires? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess I shouldn't have looked at that john kerry website, then.

    2. Re:Privacy? Over PUBLIC wires? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a practical matter you are correct. Same with the mail system, same with your house, same with your person.

      As a practical matter the government can torture and kill whenever they choose. You seem to be saying that because it is possible we may as well establish it in law.

      This is a foolish argument.

    3. Re:Privacy? Over PUBLIC wires? by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The internet is a PUBLIC network of public content. Where the hell does anyone get the idea that there is a concept of privacy involved here?

      Yes and if you go out on the PUBLIC street and down to the PUBLIC store and make some purchases and maybe a cash withdrawal at a PUBLIC ATM, and meet some friends in a PUBLIC cafe, you wouldn't have any problems with a government agent following you 2 steps behind all around would you?

      If you don't want the Government to watch what you are saying and/or doing, then don't give them anything to watch.

      And in order to prove there's not anything to watch, you need to have them watching you 24/7. Otherwise, what are you hiding?

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Privacy? Over PUBLIC wires? by Rallion · · Score: 1

      Yes and if you go out on the PUBLIC street and down to the PUBLIC store and make some purchases and maybe a cash withdrawal at a PUBLIC ATM, and meet some friends in a PUBLIC cafe, you wouldn't have any problems with a government agent following you 2 steps behind all around would you?

      I'm not really sure why I should care what they watch me do, as long as I'm not doing anything I'd prefer to have nobody else know about, or something I shouldn't be doing. What makes it worse that the governement can see me, compared to the other people on the street or in the cafe? And how does it affect the way I live my life? Should it affect it at all?

      This doesn't apply very well to me personally, becuase, well, for one thing I usually am doing something I shouldn't be. And apart from authorities finding out about those, I really have no problem whatsoever with everything I do being public. Really. Anything.

      But that's not normal. I know. For other people, who are generally good but still value privacy, I really don't see why they should worry about people watching them on the street--or on the big, public net.

    5. Re:Privacy? Over PUBLIC wires? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is a technology thing. Any time technology is seen as capable of doing something, ANYTHING, you can bet someone will try do do so

      and someone will try to crack it, its a symbiosis thing.

    6. Re:Privacy? Over PUBLIC wires? by borgasm · · Score: 1

      Well....public is public. I think everyone gives up their right to privacy in public. Everyone else can see you...so whats the big deal?

      The problem begins when they come into your private residence or area (see wiretapping comments..well...above and below).

    7. Re:Privacy? Over PUBLIC wires? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Telephone lines are public as well. Can a telephone operator listen in on your conversations? No, because the privacy of telephone conversations is protected by law. Why should the internet be any different?

  40. encryption by Praufet · · Score: 1

    is there any actual way to encrypt your traffic so it can't be read? as for me I'm not disguising my voice on all phone calls using wave shifting and modulation algorithms. Prove that in court!

  41. Did you just say???? by Genjurosan · · Score: 1

    The words 'megacorporations' and 'good' do not belong together. That is like meeting your anti-self in a difference universe.. don't touch or the universe will explode!

  42. Corruption in Nigeria: A Review by DAldredge · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Corruption in Nigeria: A Review

    A country's single strongest determinant of corruption perception is its per capita income. Nigerians' incomes rank among the poorest 6% of the world population. Nigeria's rock-bottom corruption perception rating by the international community masks a cohort of 17 nations, with one-seventh of the world's population, who are statistically just as corrupt. Unfortunately, this willful prejudice isolates the nation from receiving the direct foreign investment and development cooperation it deserves.

    Overview

    This CHRRD Research Review, the first in a series of literature and statistical reviews, places emphasis on the collection of primary source materials from a variety of perspectives from the global to the local. It examines and excerpts historical and current surveys, data and analyses concerning Nigeria's corruption and related business and governance rankings among nations. Empirically-determined correlates and consequences of corruption are reviewed and analysed within the Nigerian context. Reasons, mainly Western trade interests, behind the current drive towards global value (or behavioural) convergence are surveyed. Finally, the broad spectrum of recommendations for improving Nigeria's corruption reputation are examined. Formatting of quoted excerpts (highlighting, emboldened fonts, etc.) are the work of the compilers of this review, except where noted otherwise.

    Summary Points

    u Nigeria's corruption-prone image is significantly worse internationally than domestically. Only four percent of two thousand Nigerians polled by Afrobarometer in 2001 considered corruption to be "Nigeria's leading problem". More pressing in their minds were unemployment (39%), poverty (14%), food shortages (9%), and economic management (7%). Forty-two percent regard democratic rule as "less corrupt" than military rule, 29% "more corrupt" while a perhaps cynical 27% believed the incidence of corruption to be "the same" under either regime (Lewis, 2002).

    u In a July 2002 "Global Corruption Barometer Survey" done for Transparency International, Nigerians viewed their police force as the most corrupt institution in the country. When asked which, among eleven public and private institutions, they would most like corruption eliminated from, 32.1% answered "Police", followed by 27.0% for "Political parties" and 26.0% for the "Education system". Nearly equal numbers of Nigerians expect corruption levels to increase in the next three years (44.5%) as those who expect a decrease (38.6%).

    u The country is saddled with two distinct sets of corruption-related pathologies. The global anti-corruption regime specifically focuses on restraining senior public officialdom from the temptation of accepting bribes from rich nations' firms ("facilitation payments" to minor officials are exempt). This regime severely ostracizes Nigeria. But Nigeria also faces debilitating and vertically co-extensive levels of domestic corruption, deeply embedded in a culture of patronage politics that goes hand in hand with its natural resource "curse", oil-dependency. Transecting and conflating the domestic and international reputations in a sort of feedback loop are Nigeria's fabled practitioners of transnational business fraud and illicit trafficking.

    u Transparency International (TI) has persistently set Nigeria among the bottom five nations in its annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) since 1995. This "poll of polls" captures perceptions of corrupt tendencies in broad terms. In 2002, Nigeria's index value was 4.7% of the entire country range. Its penultimate ordinal rank persists even when 54 countries' CPI not on the official list are included. Statistically, however, this placement is both meaningless to potential foreign investors and reputationally damaging to low-ranking nations. By virtue of the 90% confidence limits established in TI's sampling, Nigeria's "true" corruption perception is indistinguishable from any of the bottom seven

  43. I want to know one thing by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 3, Funny
    You know, I often hear people holler "invasion of privacy" everytime the government suggests that they may monitor communications. Does anyone stop to think that while they are monitoring your phone sex calls, they're also monitoring Abdul "bomber-of-buildings" Akmed?

    Geez, with a nickname like that, you hardly have to tap his phone, eh? Bwah ha ha haaaa! Heee! I crack me up! I think I'll be Harvey "Destroyer Of Worlds" Birdman. Woo hoo!

    I need to know one thing. Will all of this lead to me having phone sex with hot FBI babes? If so, then I support this product and/or service.

    Yeah. Hot federal agentette on federal agentette action. Want me summa dat stuff. kupo.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
    1. Re:I want to know one thing by spikedvodka · · Score: 1

      Working in a movie rental store with an X-sentive adult collection... you'd be dissapointed, there really isn't much "Hot federal agentette on federal agentette action"... it's more the "Male Marine/Cop on Male Marine/Cop" that exists

      For the females on female... it's pretty much all "Barley Legal", "just 18"... you get the general idea

      --
      I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
  44. Re:Bush needs impeachment now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AMEN! The irony is that the people who are the least interested in honoring the The United States Constitution seem to be the ones who claim to "love America" the most. It's becoming obvious that this country is going to hell. Sooner or later, others will see it, too. I'm not sure what the people in Washington are thinking--but Americans won't put up with their behavior forever.

  45. This may be illegal by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    Check out the Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984.
    • (h) Disclosure of information to governmental entity pursuant to court order

      A governmental entity may obtain personally identifiable information concerning a cable subscriber pursuant to a court order only if, in the court proceeding relevant to such court order -

      (1) such entity offers clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the information is reasonably suspected of engaging in criminal activity and that the information sought would be material evidence in the case; and

      (2) the subject of the information is afforded the opportunity to appear and contest such entity's claim.

    This is stronger than the laws on wiretapping. This applies to both cable TV and "other services" provided by a cable TV operator.

    If the cable operator owns its own ISP, then that ISP may also be subject to these restrictions.

    1. Re:This may be illegal by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Very informative post, but it won't prevent many slashdotter from putting on their tin foil hats.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    2. Re:This may be illegal by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      (1) such entity offers clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the information is reasonably suspected of engaging in criminal activity

      I suspect that that clause would be satisfied by FBI or Homeland Security saying, "suspected terrorist under the Patriot act", closely followed by, "and if you don't roll over and play nice, we'll be after you too, for harboring a suspected terrorist."

      Maybe it can't happen that way, and I'd be really happy if someone could prove me wrong. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it did, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the poor slob at the ISP quoting the Cable TV Privacy Act to any governmental entity that could throw me in the slammer with no trial and no phone call...

    3. Re:This may be illegal by Animats · · Score: 1
      The law says "and", not "or". Under the Cable TV Privacy Act, a court order is required. There's no "national security" exception.

      This, of course, is becase when the Cable TV Privacy Act was written, the only subscriber-generated information was what they were watching.

    4. Re:This may be illegal by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      From what's been said here and elsewhere, it seems that the various new anti-terrorist laws trump even the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so why would a trivial thing like the Cable TV Privacy Act stop them??

      Besides which, would any judge say "no" if told "we need this warrant to watch a suspected terrorist"?? Especially if there was an implied "...and if you don't sign it, you'll be aiding said terrorist..."

  46. corepirate nazi mindphucking device perfectdead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    complimeNTing the already infactdead soulsucking device promoted by those whoreabull felons over at stockmarkupFraUD.con, whoAre actually the same execrabilious guise trying desperately to look under yOUR tin hats. lookout bullow.

    fortunately (so far) for many of US, the same old scriptdead hypenosys is worth less?

    tell 'em robbIE?

  47. Shut Up and Pay Your Taxes, Suspect by ddelrio · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Interesting.. It seemed so wrong when it was happening to my grandparents in Cuba. As a child, I was told to watch what I say (I was nine) when writing to my grandparents because my mail would be read by the Cuban government. At the time, I thought it was the craziest thing in the world--but it seems Americans are getting used to this sort of thing. Unfortunately, encryption wasn't an option. The Cuban government took my grandfather's secret decoder ring.

  48. Umm.. by destiney · · Score: 2, Informative


    Invasion of privacy anyone?

    Use Freenet.

    1. Re:Umm.. by October_30th · · Score: 1
      I tried it.

      Slow to the point of uselessness.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    2. Re:Umm.. by destiney · · Score: 1


      Bummer dude.. it works great on 4 different PCs for me, slowest one being a 750Mhz with 128MB of ram.

      You do know it does take a couple minutes to start up, right?

      Or maybe you're not holding your mouth right.

  49. Why Is Slashdot Unhappy? by prescot6 · · Score: 1

    Flame me if you want, but...

    Half of the posts for this story go "It's none of their business! I'll just use encryption!"

    So, if you don't want your junk being peeped just use encryption.

    Slashdot is one of the few communities that can handle advice like "encrypt your data". But it doesn't work both ways. I can't call up the parents and pull the ol' "Mom, it's time to start encrypting everything." And those same people are the people at risk the most for things like credit card fraud, etc.

    So let the government look out for those that can't look out for themselves. And for those of you who are capable, what are you complaining about?

    1. Re:Why Is Slashdot Unhappy? by Sjobeck · · Score: 0

      Just one tiny correction, the government does not and can not and should not look out for those who can not look out for themselves. They do not know how to do it, they would do it wrong even if they did know, and it would cost way to omuch. That is not the way it works in the woods, the wild, in nature. There are stronger animals and weaker animals and nature has appropriate ways to deal with this, sometimes what we might apply the word "humane" to & somtimes in ways we might apply some other word to, but none the less, it is not the responsiblity of everyone to look out for everyone else. I wish we could agree that nature has its own system for this & we ought not meddle. This savage dolt of a president we have right now is meddling & in such a way as to only fund religious right whack job orgnizations with money to help those down on their luck. Not fair. Not correct. Not even close. Ought not even try.

    2. Re:Why Is Slashdot Unhappy? by Slowtreme · · Score: 1

      "Mom, it's time to start encrypting everything."

      What exactly are you sending to your mom that you need to hide? This seems to be a major point that you "almost" agree with. I have nothing to hide from people that need to know, Sure I don't want you to have my CC# and copy of my signature, but I don't worry about the FBI getting it. If you feel the need to encrypt something so that the govenment can't review it later then maybe you are hiding something they should look at?

      How many times does MS get berated on /. for security through obscurity, and not letting anyone and everyone review their IP. Information wants to be free right? Instead of encrypting, send all your emails out with copywrite licence. Then it can't be reproduced for the courts. Don't use GPL, then they can just alter your words!

      --
      Post: Sigged, for your pleasure.
    3. Re:Why Is Slashdot Unhappy? by prescot6 · · Score: 1

      Right, that was sort of the point I was trying to make. The part about not having anything to hide. I am in the same boat as you in that I have nothing to hide. I would actually like to take things one step further and say that I would prefer to be monitored in the same way that I want to have police in my neighborhood. I think it makes everybody safer.

      The point that I was trying to make is that there seems to be a lot of people angry with being monitored and what I didn't understand was that these same people who are so angry (at least on \.) have the power to not be monitored, through encryption. And, further, they're not taking into consideration other people who could use the added security of being monitored by good guys.

    4. Re:Why Is Slashdot Unhappy? by Warlok · · Score: 1

      So let the government look out for those that can't look out for themselves. And for those of you who are capable, what are you complaining about?

      What am I complaining about? Government makes no attempt to figure out who's capable and who's not - it applies the same set of standards to everyone. There's no opt-out list for government, so I don't get the choice to be treated like a responsible adult.

      That's what I'm complaining about... and working to fix.

      --
      ...and you run and you run and you can't stop what's been done...
  50. Your Patriot act in Action by eltoyoboyo · · Score: 1

    The ease of wiretaps coupled with the ability for any government official to read the results makes the Patriot Act the strongest tool the government has ever had to monitor the population.

    Check out the EFF Analysis Of The Provisions Of The USA PATRIOT Act for some more detailed information. Blame your Senators and Representatives who rushed this through to the president.

    This ship has sailed. And it took away with your freedom, citizens of the U.S.!

    The FBI is starting to come forward to claim its spoils...

    --
    Have you Meta Moderated t
  51. Why's everyone so worried? by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's bullshit that they think they can get away with this, but this is where technology kicks them in the ass. See, there's a nice little something called encryption, and everything *CAN* be effectively encrypted.

    Even standard HTTP browsing like Slashdot... just get a cert (no, don't get it signed), bam, encrypted. Besides, if you're just browsing different sites here and there, you don't really need a *signed* cert.

    AIM has encryption now, and there's also WASTE. Email can be encrypted. So on.. so forth.

    I'm sure there will be a lot of protocol changes that will introduce encryption if this retarded idea ever gets passed. And when they do.. the law will be useless.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    1. Re:Why's everyone so worried? by ddelrio · · Score: 1

      The law is not useless. It gives government the RIGHT to infringe on your privacy. It gives them the RIGHT to try and break your encryption. It gives them the RIGHT to treat you like a suspect. This is our government. It's not supposed to be Us vs. Them.

    2. Re:Why's everyone so worried? by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

      I understand it's OUR government, and that's the problem. Most people don't CARE about stuff like this, that's why it's happening. If people cared, there would be a bigger public uproar and it would be put to rest.

      The problem IS that it has to be Us vs. Them simply because those (the rest of the sheep) who vote and create OUR government are closed minded idiots who don't give a shit about basic rights.

      See, there's a lot of talk about speaking out, writing to your representatives/senators, protesting, etc... but it does no good. Sadly, the only thing left is Us vs Them.

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    3. Re:Why's everyone so worried? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is were "The Plan" comes in. We take over the world, kill the sheep, and everyone's happy. Anyone with me?

  52. Government == terrorists ? by northwind · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "access to communications infrastructure they need to protect our nation."

    This phrase has been used before. Interesting - I thought the terrorist threat came from outside - not inside?

    Could it be because of the old lame Shogun effect? The common enemy. Protect yourself by paying me to find problems that should worry you.

    Are we still free? Are we still allowed to think that we are free?

    Beware of the killer tomatoes.....

    1. Re:Government == terrorists ? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      We're not only allowed to think we are free, its required of us by law now.

  53. Re:Start chanting... by MoneyT · · Score: 1

    Because getting bush out will certainly chance the effects of a 1994 law right?

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  54. WAKE UP, MODS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't a troll. Just because his informative/insightful opinion doesn't match yours doesn't mean you have to label it "troll".

    Perhaps it's people like you (those who mod down stuff like this) why laws like this wiretapping bullshit go into effect. Truth hurts.

  55. 4th ammendment by TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It seems the writers of the "patriot" act (and many other laws, for that matter) have forgotten the constraints on their power that are written in to the document they are sworn to protect!!!

    *sigh* guess its time to break out the tin-foil hats...

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:4th ammendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, get the jumbo size to cover your @ss too...

  56. Yes it is by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    If they have a court order. Privacy isn't an ultimate and unbreachable right. Your home is private and the police have to stay out, unless they get a warrant. Then they are allowed to come in and search.

    Wiretaps are likewise. They need a warrant, then they can breach the privacy of your communication. Now looking at this law, it's no different except that it applies to broadband. No problems there, laws need to be updated to meet the times.

    The only problem would be if it allowed taps without a warrant, but I don't see that.

    1. Re:Yes it is by adpsk · · Score: 1

      OK, I agree. I still have sleep in my eye ;), but I still think they're shooting themselves in the foot.

  57. why are you fearful? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1


    Unless you are participating in some criminal activity violating federal rules of electronic transmission and a variety of other schemes, how does this affect you? You use email, don't you? Carnivore already sniffs through that. Do you use a mobile phone or a landline? Echelon already snoops on you. BFD.

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    1. Re:why are you fearful? by ddelrio · · Score: 1

      I love that attitude. You needn't worry unless you're a criminal, huh? Maybe I'm into scat. That's legal. It doesn't mean I want my government to know about it.

    2. Re:why are you fearful? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's wrong with mandatory body cavity searches? Unless you are participating in some criminal activity violating federal rules of contraband and controlled substances, how does this affect you?

      Well, it's called 'innocent until proven guilty,' 'due process,' and 'unreasonable search and seizure.'

      Not that America cares all that much about the Constitution; just wait until that bill passes which allows Congress to supercede the SCOTUS...

      Checks and balances; here's the check, now my balance is bigger. Here's your new law, sir, would you like freedom fries with that?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    3. Re:why are you fearful? by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      The irony is that that bill isn't a constitutional ammendment (unless I seriously misread it).

      So SCOTUS could *still* declare the damned thing unconstitutional (under Maburry vs. Madison, no less... heh) and, well...

      I think this is what they call constitutional chaos? (Which is probably why said bill is, hopefully, quite likely to go nowhere...)

    4. Re:why are you fearful? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Aye. Supposed Time Traveller John Titor's predictions about a US Civil War in 2005 don't look so far fetched....

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    5. Re:why are you fearful? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Oh, and forgot to mention, by trying to strike it down, according to Congress, they'll be showing the rampant abuse of power that needs to be taken away by this law...

      "Of course they're trying to strike it down!" fumes a congresscritter. "They're just trying to hold on to their power!"

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    6. Re:why are you fearful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you are participating in some criminal activity violating federal rules of electronic transmission and a variety of other schemes, how does this affect you? You use email, don't you? Carnivore already sniffs through that. Do you use a mobile phone or a landline? Echelon already snoops on you. BFD

      Yes, but the leftist fuckwits that read slashdot think that the government is going to come after them for their MP3's and m00vi3s or use this crap to go after script kiddies.

      d00d, we don't care if 3000 people died we WANT OUR FREE MP3s@@$ + HAX !!! OMG BUSH iz TEH HITLAR.

  58. Re:Business idea - covered by AnonX by Uninvited+Guest · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't this exactly what AnonX promises? For $6/month, you can tunnel all of your traffic over an encrypted VPN to Vanatua and then to the Internet at large. Vanatua has excellent privacy protection, and AnonX doesn't keep any logs, anyway. The FBI's pressure on ISP's makes AnonX seem even more attractive.

    --
    Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
  59. All for the low, low price of... by gumpish · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fifty bucks.

    Perhaps PGP Freeware would fit the bill for the budget-minded slashdotter. (Also integrates with popular mail clients.)

  60. thanks to Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we get to loose our civil liberties every single day. Let's vote him back in office, so that we can loose all our civil liberties. Who needs freedom anyways, not like Bush does what he preaches.

  61. vote with your dollars by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    American Megacorporations may own American politicians, but you still have a choice in where you spend your money.

  62. avoid unencrypted protocols by gimpboy · · Score: 1

    use https, scp, rsync over ssh, stunnel. really the only thing i do that is not encrypted is read slashdot. when i send mail, i ssh to a server which i control. it's easy enough to set up your web server to use https, and i transfer everything using scp or rsync over ssh. i dont know much about irc.

    --
    -- john
  63. Watching the Sun Set on the USA by serutan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Face it people, all this surveillance is going to happen. The government is going to have complete information about you and contrl over you in a few short years. The Internet can be a great tool for communication and education, just like television could have been. It can also be a tool for control, just like television is.

    America is in the hands of the bad guys, and within our lifetimes we will have a totalitarian government ruling a flock of consumer/workers who generate wealth for the top 2%. Just like in the good old days, only with HDTV. It's pretty much that way now, but in the future it won't be a secret, and people won't really care as long as the can buy cheap gas, eat Big Macs and watch American Idol on a 42-incher.

    I've come to the conclusion that it's just the way the human race works. Some people take charge because the rest let them. Unless you are one of those take-charge types, the best thing you can hope to do is take care of yourself, your family and other people you care about, stay under the radar and live as well as possible. Democracy is like every other good thing that survives until They Who Must Own Everything figure out how to hack it.

    1. Re:Watching the Sun Set on the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your forgetting 666 (the mark of the beast) that changes everything when it happens...

  64. It's Called Convience by Andy_w715 · · Score: 2

    People are so quick to give up privacy for convience. Maybe people should read the agreements that they agree to. They (the people) regularly give up thier privacy everyday. If you don't have anything to hide; who cares?

    1. Re:It's Called Convience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you don't have anything to hide; who cares?"

      You'll care one day when that sick fuck John Ashcroft comes knocking on your door falsely accusing you of something that was gleaned from a log file somewhere that was unconstitutionally monitored.

    2. Re:It's Called Convience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah the jews had nothing to hide so where did it get them? gassed in nazi camps! don`t forget 666 if you refuse the mark (666) guess what? you go to prison and/or killed.....

  65. Yeah, keep dreaming by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I live in holland. Drugs are here more or less legal. So what do we do with a person who deals LEGAL drugs in holland and just happens to sell stuff to american tourists who themselves smuggle it to the US?

    Hand them over ofcourse. Despite the fact people in america do not get a fair trial. If you believe they do look a little bit closer at the system of plea bargaining, people are in jail in america without ever having been found guilty or even have had a trial in front of a jury or judge. Nice eh? Oh sure you can refuse the plea bargain. couple of years in jail vs life when you got no money and no experience with the legal system.

    No I am afraid that the worst thing in the world that ever happened was the collapse of the soviet union. At least when they were around america had some opposition. Sure sucked if you lived in the soviet union but now the whole world is living in the US.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Yeah, keep dreaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I lived in Holland for a year, and I never heard of anyone getting in trouble for selling americans (soft) drugs. Maybe, they would track somebody down for a bag of E or a bunch of coke though.

      Holland is an amazing country and the Dutch rock. Furthermore, Kali Mist from the Dampkring and tweede Kamer rocks. Also, Nepalese hash rocks, so do mushrooms, raves in holland rock and Dutch girls really rock. Prostitution absolutely rocks and 10 dollar bicycles from junkies rock. Pretty canals and great bars and techno clubs also rock.

      in short.

      Rock!

    2. Re:Yeah, keep dreaming by Tune · · Score: 1

      Nice words about Holland & the Dutch, but Justice in the Netherlands indeed sucks when it comes down to extraditing Dutch citizens suspected of selling drugs to US citizens. The Dutch authorities do arrest people and they do send them to the US, even though they know their cases will never go to trial and even though they will get a much higher sentence in de US.

      In short, Holland may rock, but (drug related) enforcement is definitely America's bitch.

      --
      A citizen of USA will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national elections

  66. You don't have an absolute right to privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Invasion of privacy anyone?"

    Your right to privacy ends when investigators show credible evidence to a judge that you are involved in criminal activity, and he agrees that your actions need to be examined by investigators. Claiming you have unlimited priacy against investigation over criminal activity is unreasonable.

  67. What now police can't do surveilance either? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
    Arresting people is invasion of privacy too eh?

    I am afraid there are three kinds of people who don't like this. Criminals, loonies and people who think wiretapping is fine as long as their is a ton of paperwork signed by a judge and that is put out in the open after a certain period and that period being no more then a year.

    Wiretapping is no different from them intercepting mail, phone tapping or bugging a place. All needed for them to do the job the normal people want them to do. Just make sure that it is open and in the public eye.

    Digital wiretapping would make it too easy just to do a blanket sweep. Me being investigated because they think I killed someone is good, me being investigated because my income is in a certain target is bad.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  68. I wouldn't be surprised by abolith · · Score: 2, Insightful
    if the FBI stated that they would like powers rivaling those held by the SS and the Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo). hell a few more patriot acts and they just might....

    --
    if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
  69. I think this is slightly different by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
    Seems to be more like them obtaining your phone records. IE the famous, ah but you called your lover 5 minutes after your husband died and only then the ambulance, from the movies.

    Wiretapping falls under surveillance. Getting you to appear before the judge to defend yourselve against being tapped would be rather pointless. Surveillance works on the premise that the suspect doesn't know about it.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:I think this is slightly different by sakyamuni · · Score: 1
      Getting you to appear before the judge to defend yourselve against being tapped would be rather pointless.

      Read the quoted paragraphs again. They deal with the release of personally identifiable information, not wiretap authorizations.

  70. Re:completely internal by ka9dgx · · Score: 1
    Well, the choice of the Iraqi leader was a "completely internal" matter, and we didn't mind tweaking it to suite our needs. Nor do we seem to mind playing in Haiti, Venezuela, Panama, or anywhere else we suspect might be useful. It's not surprising that we're getting blowback.

    --Mike--

  71. Good News by mattlary · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, the good news is we all have access to encryption software-- but then again, the govt may already have quantum computing or something. Yeah, we're all screwed.

  72. Problem is no court is now required by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That is the crux of the issue. Yes it should be Ok to tap, if you get a signed court order from a judge. ( ie, having to make a case for the tap )

    The problem is with these new 'taps' is that all the FBI/CIA/etc have to do is claim it has something to do with national security ( they dont even have to explain why ) and they get full access to your private transactions, papers, home, etc.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Problem is no court is now required by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      The problem is with these new 'taps' is that all the FBI/CIA/etc have to do is claim it has something to do with national security ( they dont even have to explain why ) and they get full access to your private transactions, papers, home, etc.

      Care to provide some docs or links to back this up?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  73. Newt Gingrinch and the new Republican House passed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that bill ... so what was your point?

  74. Bad idea by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    This is a bad idea for several reasons, but the main one is that it may ( will ) attract attention to your self. Which in this day and age is NOT a good idea, regardless of how straight you are.

    Once they 'notice' you, they will just bring out the big guns, and just tap your PC before its encrypted..

    Eventually i can see general encryption becoming illegal and it wont matter what you are saying, even if its 'have a nice day' you get tossed in the can.

    Remember, now the system operates on presumed guilt...

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Bad idea by kaisa_sosey · · Score: 1

      No, the opposite is true (by your own argumentation). If more people would start to use it for everyday communication it would become hard for them to notice you.

      I cannot (or will not ;-)) believe that more encryption would make it illegal for the average joe. How will they explain that gouvernments and corporations need encryption but you don't?

    2. Re:Bad idea by pla · · Score: 1

      How will they explain that gouvernments and corporations need encryption but you don't?

      Perhaps more importantly, "hiding" encryption (at least well enough to provide plausible deniability) takes relatively little effort.

      Let's say PGP becomes illegal - I could personally, in under an hour, write a program to embed the PGP data in a sound clip of me saying "Hi $NAME, nice day today, can I borrow a cup of sugar?". Not talking about "real" steganography, but just pack the encrypted data as the low-nibble per sample. Wouldn't even produce a noticeable level of distortion (compared to using a consumer-grade PC microphone), and only increases the data size by a factor of four (for most typical emails without any attachments, the simple three-second message I wrote above would suffice - at the standard CD rate of 16/44.1, it would hold 33k worth of encrypted data).

      Can the government detect that? Currently, I would say "probably". Add in a good data whitening filter to the encryption, along with some "real" steganography, and the actual message becomes indistinguishable from a high noise floor, unless you know exactly what to look for. Not only would you need your password to decrypt the actual encoded data, but it would also contain the parameters needed just to find the encrypted data in the first place.


      Of course, all of this will become moot as soon as people notice that having ISPs add a back door almost certainly count as "boiling the frog"... Non-geeks say, "well, this only affects my ISP, not me, and it will help catch $SCAPEGOAT_OF_THE_WEEK", so they don't care. Next step, explain (slowly and carefully, so as not to spook the sheep) that such measures basically allow the government to see everything people do online - Then propose such backdoors in every PC. And people will once again rationalize it, "Well, they can already see everything I do, so if this will help catch $SCAPEGOAT_OF_THE_WEEK, I guess I can accept it".

      And if you think that I overstate the situation, I'd point out that the government has already tried to jump right to that last step, but the sheep got spooked. So, this latest approach allows the gradual introduction of what they wanted in the first place.

      Governments (and to a lesser degree, corporations) have an advantage over we mere mortals - They can plan for very long-term gains toward reaching their intended goals. Simply causing enough people to demand an end to this newest encroachment on our liberties won't have any effect - Mostly because not enough people can understand it, nevermind "do" understand it. But also because the government will just try again.

      The best way to fight back involves presenting the government with a "put the genie back in the bottle" scenario - Before they manage to outlaw encryption altogether, we need to make sure that every single program that communicates with the outside world uses encryption. People won't fight back at something they don't perceive as a mere annoyance (such as having those bothersomely-abstract 4th amendment rights stripped away). If you force them to replace 90% of the software on their computer (which at best "scares" them out of lack of understanding, at at worst they actually have no clue how to comply with the law or even if they have violated it), you'll see one hell of public backlash.

    3. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the real answer here is to implement IPSec across the board so that every TCP/IP packet goes across the link encrypted from the time it enters the IPSec layer on one end to the time it enters the IPSec layer at the other end.

      What we (as in the network applance makers, ISPs, programmers and whoever else) need for that is to finalize all the standards needed for IPSec to operate. Then, we need packages for the main operating systems (Linux, OSX, Windows, Unix etc) that one can install that will provide automatic transparent IPSec if the host at the other end supports it and if not, will fallback to unencrypted sending. Then, get people to install it. From there, every machine that runs IPSec is more packets that go out encrypted and cant be read by anyone in the middle.

      Remember, only both ends of the link need IPSec support, machines in the middle (e.g. gateways, firewalls, routers etc) dont. (at least thats my understanding of the protocol)

      IPSec wont completly replace application level encryption (such as PGP or https) because for example, mail may go over IPSec from your machine to mail.myisp.com but its impossible to be sure that the mail goes over IPSec from mail.myisp.com to mail.yourisp.com or whatever.

      IPSec would also (I think) provide protection against spoofing and man-in-the-middle attacks.

      Plus, IPSec is (as far as I know anyway) totally open and free from patents and such which means that anyone can implement IPSec into their stack.

  75. carnivor by presmike · · Score: 2, Funny

    bomb, plane, terrorist, nuclear, osama, arab, isreal, pakastan, iraq, sadam, bilogical weapons, anarchy.... *waits for knock on door by the FBI...*

    --
    presmike
    1. Re:carnivor by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 1

      The only cops that will come to your door are the spelling police.

      --

      What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

  76. Re:Newt Gingrinch and the new Republican House pas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean Clinton didn't sign it into law?

  77. No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The law was passed in 1994, the same year as the election the Republicans won the Congress. The new Congress began in January 1995, after the law was passed.

    Clairfying that fact does not mean I support the Republicans. I say a pox on both their houses.

    www.lp.org

    1. Re:No they didn't by DietVanillaPepsi · · Score: 1

      I see you provided a link to the Libertarian Party website. While I agree with quite a few of the LP's platforms, they are not electable. They focus entirely too much on the war on drugs and not enough on general government largesse. Besides, the collective wants big government. You get big government whether you vote for Republicans or Democrats. The political stagnation that stems from the two-party system would have to be challenged by a third party that focused less on specific issues and had a more broad program they would seek to implement.

  78. 1984? You are illiterate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the theme of 1984 is not loss of privacy, although that is an asspect. The theme of 1984 is a totalrian state that result from the effects of prolonged war on society.

    1984 = 1948 UK. After the war the UK was devistated and could have fallen into totalitarianism.

  79. Like many things, it's already been written by ThousandStars · · Score: 1
    I think your conclusion is wrong and you present a defeatist attitude. Still, a situation similar to what you describe is in Brave New World, by Adulous (sp?) Huxley. In it, the people are sedated by happy drugs (the chemical equivalent American Idol), and the Savage who dares to question the system is put down because no one questions the government.

    Today, people question the American government -- except that a majority is either too apathetic to decide, or agree with what the government is doing.

    1. Re:Like many things, it's already been written by ddelrio · · Score: 1

      You're right--but a majority wouldn't be required if our government actually followed what was written down in our Constitution. The Constitution is what protects us from democracy. Majority rule doesn't work. Opinion should not be mandated by law. We're supposed to be a republic--not a democracy.

  80. Re:Business idea - covered by AnonX by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

    With all the pressure on ISPs, doesn't it make you wonder how an ISP promising terrorist/pedophile grade anonymity can survive? You do the math.

    --

    Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

  81. Freedom by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    Well to date many Americans have lost many freedoms in the name of a false sense of security. So that "Big Brother" can keep us safe. Instead of closing borders, and checking the imigrant population hell lets just become socialist. Thats what has happened to this country.

    I wanna know. Is the broadband wiretap so they can track "terrorists"? Who are these terrorists? Are /. readers aware that under the Patriot Act any US born citizen suspected of terrorism can be held unjustly and indefinitely without being charged. How would you like it if some screw up landed you in the pokey for the next 20 years? It could happen.

    I hate politics. It'll start a fight quiker than a your mamma joke. But I think it's time the American people tell our leaders that enough is enough. Washington needs a check up from the neck up.

    If the people don't follow then who do the leaders lead?

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  82. I know why we aren't putting money in education... by SleeknStealthy · · Score: 1

    because soon enough, we the citizens of the United States, will no longer be able to make our own decisions. We can leave it all up to our government, but whats new, we don't vote on sending our troops to war, we are relatively uninformed about what our government is doing, and our public officials are puppets to large corporations. But why should I worry, our economy is doing great, gas prices are going through the roof, thousands of professional jobs are moving to asia and our middle class has be disseminating for thirty years. I think the government is doing a great thing, thank you Bush for putting oil first. If it wasn't for our protectionalist attitude maybe other countries wouldn't hate us so much, and maybe our soldiers could be mothers and fathers to their children.

    --
    Math
  83. Easy by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Since when has the needs of the public mattered to the government?

    Look around you, how many modern laws actually are *for* the people, instead of restricting them. Not many.

    Especially lately, since its been a free for all attack on citizens rights.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  84. The problem with Mexico... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..is that it's full of Mexicans.

  85. Re:Business idea - covered by AnonX by Uninvited+Guest · · Score: 1

    I'm not so sure. What would be the threat to an offshore ISP, based in a carefully chosen country (like Vanatua or SeaLand)? The FBI has no jurisdiction over the out-of-country ISP, so the FBI can't get anything useful from them, if the provider even logs anything useful. Remember, AnonX isn't bound by the CALEA regulations. The local, US-based ISP can open all of a subscriber's traffic to the FBI, but it's all encrypted packets from that perspective. The raw equipment and software to run the offshore ISP are basically fixed costs, and the cost of bandwidth roughly scales with the number of subscribers. On the contray, I think the encrypted VPN/IPSec providers may thrive. Of course, at least part of the new susbscribers may be pedofiles and terrorists, but that's just one of those consequences of secure anonymity.

    --
    Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
  86. How about JAP? by core+plexus · · Score: 1
    I know it is neither perfect, nor finished, but JAP can help. One more layer.

    -cp-

  87. Re:No, *I'm* Tired of it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will you care when it's you, or someone you love who gets up in the morning, goes to work, and gets killed for no good reason?

    Screw you and your emotional, puerile rant. I am fed up with the victims of every tragic incident thinking they have some special insight or authority that allows them to impose "better" laws on everyone. It doesn't matter if it is Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, 9-11, Megan's law, domestic violence, or any of the other umpteen causes that have arisen to alter the law over the last 40 years. Laws created by advocacy groups, unchecked by reason, are always a disaster. You people should learn to deal with your grief just like everyone else and stop trying to use the legal system as some cathartic closure.

    I didn't know anyone who died but I know at least 6 people who made it out of the towers without all that much time to spare. And there is very little in the Patriot Acts (I or II) that is going to make one bit of difference in stopping the next attack.

    Do you seriously think these laws have anything to do with terrorism? This is a fucking industry growing up around a power grab and both of them are occuring for very little reason other than "they can" - techologically and politically.

    If we were serious about stopping terrorism we wouldn't be concentrating our efforts on building databases correlating prune juice purchases and suicide bombings but rather make an effort to protect the national borders. On any given evening the entire Iranian army can skip across the Arizona border but we are spending billions making sure we know EXACTLY how much each citizen has in their bank and 401k account.

    It's all a crock and we gave away our freedom for nothing, absolutely nothing.

  88. Re:1984? You are illiterate by ddelrio · · Score: 1

    I disagree. How was 1984 about a war on society? Despite what we've been told, the word "war" has an actual meaning. Society was part of the problem in 1984. The loss of the individual in favor of the collective. Furthermore, we're all illiterate. We no longer understand the meaning of the word "war". We no longer understand the meaning of the word "patriot". The phrase "clean air" certainly doesn't mean what I was taught it meant. Certainly, the current meaning of the word "freedom" eludes me. I think Iraq would have come up with a constitution much more quickly if they had known they're completely meaningless.

  89. Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the kind of situation cryptography was developed for. It's sole purpose is to prevent the enemy from recovering the message in a feasible amount of time. The algorithms for strong cryptography are all over the web and there are plenty of open source implementations of those alogrithms. So getting strong cryptography out the publics hands would require a massive effort, one that would surely meet with tons of opposition.

  90. Very interesting "tin foil hat" observation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I posted a reply to this very post a few hours ago... it was kind of inflamatory and accusatory about the kind of equipment that's being installed at cable ISPs, and who's sniffing what with that equipment and how those people couldn't care less about any law restricting their behaviour since there is no oversight of them.

    Now 3 hours later, my reply (also posted as AC) is vanished and completely missing from this thread. Not even moderated down to flamebait. It's *gone*.

    Hmmmmmmm.......

  91. Not as Interpreted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IIRC there were some legal interpretations a few years ago to the effect that the privacy protections which applied to watching cable TV content do not apply to cable-based communications over the Internet. So, the fact that you watch an HBO movie means there are some hoops under this act before the govt can learn that. The hoops don't apply to your use of a cable broadband ISP.

  92. Why? by grungefade · · Score: 1

    Why do we let a couple hundred of people make all the decisions for billions? It seems to me the majority is apposed to what is happening lately around the world with invasion of privacy. And all us little ones still slave to capitolism and are slowly letting it become our one day prision. What has made all of us become so frightened of coming together? The only reason the ones on top wont join us is because if they dont have money, they have nothing. Option 1: Do nothing, and soon wont be able to do anything. Option 2: Do something, and at least you can do something.

    1. Re:Why? by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      The chance to do something will be on the first Tuesday, after the first Monday in November.

      The wording of the U.S. constitution.

      Vote, it's the one time the bitching means something. If you don't vote, I don't care about your opinion.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  93. DONT TRUST SEC ADVICE FROM SLASHDOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    obviously the above luser thought we is correct.

    When the hacker does not try to crack 128 bit ssl.
    they just look for a bug in the openssl implementation that
    really does suck. Take a look at the code sometime. Especially the area where one starts/creates/right before uses the ssl session.

    oi. why do i bother. security is for the birds. no one cares.

  94. "Nationwide Service of Search Warrants for Electro by DAldredge · · Score: 1



    How Section 220 Changed the Law

    Before PATRIOT, the FBI could execute a search warrant for electronic evidence only within the geographic jurisdiction of the court that issued the warrant - for example, the FBI couldn't get a New York court to issue a warrant for email messages stored by your ISP in California.

    After PATRIOT, courts can issue warrants for electronic evidence -- your email messages, your voice mail messages and the electronic records detailing your web-surfing -- anywhere in the country. Notably, Section 220 isn't reserved for terrorism-related investigations, despite the fact that PATRIOT was sold to the American public as a necessary anti-terrorism measure. Instead, it applies in any kind of criminal investigation whatsoever.
    Why Section 220 Should Sunset

    Section 220 significantly increases the chances that search warrants that fail to meet Constitutional standards will be used to search and seize your electronic communications:

    * Section 220 allows the FBI to pick and choose which courts it can ask for a search warrant. This means it can "shop" for judges that have demonstrated a strong bias toward law enforcement with regard to search warrants, using only those judges least likely to say no -- even if the warrant doesn't satisfy the strict requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
    * By allowing courts to issue warrants to be served on communications providers in far-away states, Section 220 reduces the likelihood that your ISP or phone company will try to protect your privacy by challenging the warrant in court, even if the warrant is clearly unconstitutional. A small San Francisco ISP served with such a warrant is unlikely to have the resources to appear before the New York court that issued it. Yet because you won't be notified if the FBI uses a warrant to get your electronic communications, your ISP is the only entity in a position to fight for your rights.

    The FBI argues that having to secure search warrants from more than one court during an investigation is a waste of time. But local judicial oversight is a key check against unreasonable searches. Further, the FBI already has the ability to conduct emergency searches without a warrant when it doesn't have time to go to a local judge.

    Even worse, Section 220 isn't necessary even to help combat terrorism -- PATRIOT section 219 already allows nationwide search warrants in terrorism-related investigations. In fact, the only practical result of Section 220 is less paperwork for the FBI -- at the expense of your Constitutional rights.
    Conclusion

    Section 220 threatens your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. EFF strongly opposes its renewal, and we urge you to oppose it, too. We also support the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE Act, S 1709/HR 3352) and encourage you to visit EFF's Action Center today to let your representatives know you support the bill.

  95. Shaving cream? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about some shaving cream over the lenses?
    The gov't can't see *everything* at once?

    The bad part is that a dead camera attracts
    security like flies on sh1t.

  96. Patriot Act by ingenuus · · Score: 1
    You raise a very interesting question. IANAL and I have not personally investigated or read the entire Patriot Act myself, since it is ridiculously long and terse to the point of being untractable -- particularly due to the included amendments to other laws using sentence fragments, which might be where the answer your are looking for actually lies.

    I have thus far relied upon summaries, such as EFF's analysis of the USAPA, which obviously tends towards a particular viewpoint.

    An even more brief summary seems to suggest at least two points you might be interested in:
    The Government can monitor an individual's web surfing records, use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals "proximate" to the primary person being tapped, access Internet Service Provider records, and monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.
    and
    Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) requires no court order. Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on any computer user.
    It looks like it might be section 202 of the USAPA that deals with "computer fraud and abuse offenses," which is one of those "fragment amendments" which I'm not up to copying/pasting/parsing.

    So, as I understand it, the USAPA does not do away with the courts in the general case, but rather provides exceptions for requiring court approval including being "proximate" to a person under investigation and being suspected of "computer fraud and abuse offenses."

    I also found a site called Slate that has an evaluation of the USAPA which might interest you.

    It is also curious that your interpretation of the quoted passages seems very similar to how I understood the process to work prior to the Patriot Act, which begs the question of why this portion of the Patriot Act is necessary at all?
    1. Re:Patriot Act by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the EFFs anaylisis is going to paint things in a shaded light, which is why I've been trying for a long time to find a fairly unbiased analysis of it. But it seems to me that going to the ACLU or the EFF for an analysis of it is like going to ChristiansRUs for an anaylisis of Roe V Wade.

      In reference to the proximate taps, that wording actualy doesn't appear and from what I've read, if the police want to tap people not on the original warrent but persuent to the investigation, they have to submit certification to the courts that they are indeed relevant.

      You are indeed right that this is a painstaking thing to assemble, and I've tried hard, and so far from my trying I haven't found anything, which is why I ask.

      As for why the patriot act is nessesary, it's mostly a modifying bill. That is, it updates some definitions (i.e. wiretap becomes wiretap and pen register) and basicaly updates the laws to conform with chanign technology. It likewise changes some definitions (the old definition of terrorism did not include WMDs)

      A good portion of it is also sun setted which indicates it isnt nessesary in the sense that we want it forever, but it was nessesary to expediate investigation after sept 11

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    2. Re:Patriot Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong--did I scare you off at the other discussion? I'd like to hear why you think America's founding fathers wanted to encourage rampant factionalism (i.e. why you think anything other than a two-party system is sustainable in the USA).

    3. Re:Patriot Act by ingenuus · · Score: 1
      I took a closer look, and it does appear that (IMHO) the EFF did somewhat misrepresent pertinent sections of the Patriot Act by omitting additional requirements.

      Their more detailed analysis, that I also linked to previously, provides much better explanations (the bottom half of the page basically analyzes the USAPA point by point). I've verified several of them with the USC and they appear to be more accurate interpretations of the law (from my newbie perspective), while also providing some useful context to the individual topics (since the law is synergistic and open to interpretation).

      With respect to your particular question of whether it is legal for government employees investigating "computer trespass" to perform wiretaps without a court order, it appears to be possible under 217 -- as long as the computer owner and operator (e.g. ISP) "authorizes" surveillance. To quote from the EFF analysis:

      PATRIOT 217 changes

      18 USC 2510, adding another area where any government employee, not just law enforcement, may conduct content surveillance of U.S. persons. This is when a computer owner and operator "authorizes" surveillance and a law enforcement agent "has reasonable grounds to believe contents of communication will be relevant" to investigating computer trespass and does not acquire anyone else's communications. This section authorizes interception of messages suspected of being sent through a computer without "authorization."
      a. The term "authorization" is not defined, giving the owner/operator of protected computer and the government agent great discretion.
      b. BUT this does not include someone who is known to have an existing contractual relationship to access all or part of the computer. According to DOJ, ISP customers who send spam in violation of ISP's terms of service would not be trespassers.

      Note that I linked to the USC above so you could read the complete law yourself (it's at the bottom of the page).

      IMHO, this law may prove to be fairly complex because, quite often, "computer trespass" occurs (at least in part) through legitimate users' accounts or means. Hence, in order to monitor a suspected computer trespasser, a legitimate user might be monitored, which seems to be in conflict with one of the implied requirements.

      In addition, I'd like to illuminate a couple of points in the USAPA 216 MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO USE OF PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES, which you quoted in a previous post:

      1) "if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation..."
      - If I understand correctly, "certified" is a very weak requirement... essentially, it is the government officially saying "we believe it is relevant" and not necessarily providing proof at that time.

      2) "A) Where the law enforcement agency implementing an ex parte order under this subsection seeks to do so by installing and using its own pen register or trap and trace device..."
      - Note that if an ISP's own equipment is used by the government for "wiretapping", the associated accountability does not apply.
      - Perhaps this is why the government (through some other laws) is pushing all ISPs (e.g. Time Warner) to implement their own built-in wiretapping capabilities -- i.e. in order to obviate the legal requirement of accountability?

      Here's a few more brief points I extracted from the EFF analysis on how the Patriot Act broadens the powers of law enforcement:
      1) broader applicability of warrants:
      - extending

    4. Re:Patriot Act by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Thanks for takign to time to look more indepth at this, I'll have to read the in depth a bit mroe carefuly when I have more time, for the moment I'd like ot adress what you said:

      In regards to section 217, I suppose that does create and instance, but it's a unique instance in that the user of a computer is not it's owner. In the cases of business computers (like in an office building) I don't see this as a problem as for all intents and purposes any business you conduct using company equipment is the business of the company.

      The ISPs do pose an interesting problem, but as you noted:

      This is when a computer owner and operator "authorizes" surveillance and a law enforcement agent "has reasonable grounds to believe contents of communication will be relevant" to investigating computer trespass and does not acquire anyone else's communications.

      Now, if they weren't investigating a user specificaly, I would think any of a user's data gathered would be inadmissable anywhere. It would be a question to ask a lawer though.

      In regards to section 216, while ceritfied needs a definition (another question for a lawer) I feel that the second part of that is a bit misleading or unclear. To start I quote the rest of the section:

      on a packet-switched data network of a provider of electronic communication service to the public, the agency shall ensure that a record will be maintained which will identify--

      `(i) any officer or officers who installed the device and any officer or officers who accessed the device to obtain information from the network;

      `(ii) the date and time the device was installed, the date and time the device was uninstalled, and the date, time, and duration of each time the device is accessed to obtain information;

      `(iii) the configuration of the device at the time of its installation and any subsequent modification thereof; and

      `(iv) any information which has been collected by the device.

      To the extent that the pen register or trap and trace device can be set automatically to record this information electronically, the record shall be maintained electronically throughout the installation and use of such device.

      `(B) The record maintained under subparagraph (A) shall be provided ex parte and under seal to the court which entered the ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of the device within 30 days after termination of the order (including any extensions thereof).'.


      it seems to me that while certian things do not have to be documented, a court order is still required in the first place to initiate a tap. So I suppose the concern about non accountability is there, but that's certianly a seperate issue from not having a warrent in the first place.

      As for 219, from what I read, it's very specific in the cases it's limited to, but more importantly (and this determines a majro part of my opinion of this section) it seems to be a very specific limitation of what can be searched for outside. Namely those items named in the warrant

      For 220, I think we need a better look at it, i don't see anything about ISPs at all in that section, and it still seems to me like that while they can apply nation wide, that have to have been issued by a court with such jurisdiction

      209 doesn't in particular bother me. Stored electronic information is no different (or should be no different) than a fileing cabinet or mail box, and as such should be applicable to a search warrant.

      As for 213, I think some peoplle are reading it as an or statement and not and. All 3 sections have to be met for the authorization. As such, the law enforcement has to prove that notification would have adverse affects on the investigation

      As for 206, I have to look at it much more closely

      Again thanks for the help

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  97. Re:1984? You are illiterate by DietVanillaPepsi · · Score: 1
    "War" has become a meaningless term because of its overuse in terms such as the 'War on Drugs', and of course, what will be the neverending 'War on Terror.'

    The word "patriotic" became meaningless as well when it took on the form of waving flags and singing the Star Spangled Banner. When dissent became "unpatriotic", patrotism was cheapened, left to describe only those who hold back on criticizing government.

    Certainly, the current meaning of the word "freedom" eludes me.

    Does the same to me. I'd like to define freedom as the ability and right to do anything one pleases without infringing on the rights of others. However, it is not really practiced that way in the U.S.

  98. What is the difference... by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 1

    between this and the good, old-fashioned phone tap? They're just trying to keep up with technology.

    --


    Evil is the money of root.
  99. Here's a tip... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't do stupid stuff, and you will never have to worry whether you can legally be tapped or not. It's not some blatant attack on your personal freedoms. Stop downloading pxrn if you're afraid of getting caught. It's called integrity. Have some.

  100. Re:"Nationwide Service of Search Warrants for Elec by MoneyT · · Score: 1

    Regardless, that still doesn't show where the police can get a wire tap without going to the courts first.

    These were the courts before that could issue:

    (2)

    the term ''court of competent jurisdiction'' means -

    (A)

    any district court of the United States (including a magistrate judge of such a court) or any United States court of appeals having jurisdiction over the offense being investigated; or

    (B)

    a court of general criminal jurisdiction of a State authorized by the law of that State to enter orders authorizing the use of a pen register or a trap and trace device;


    and this is what it is in the patriot act (bold mine)

    (3) the term `court of competent jurisdiction' has the meaning assigned by section 3127(quoted above), and includes any Federal court within that definition, without geographic limitation.

    So even courts without geographical limitation have to still fall under the definitions of section 3127.

    But again, as I said, there is nothing which gives them permission to tap without court order.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  101. Dang it by Rank_Tyro · · Score: 1

    Wish I still had a moderator point for this post. This would be a +1 insightfull.

    --
    Today's show is brought to you by the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: 25
  102. Welcome to my party. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

    I've had this sig on all email and posts for about four years now. No arrests yet. ;)

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  103. Damit where's mod points when you need them?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great post!

  104. Re:Business idea - covered by AnonX by vegetablespork · · Score: 1
    But the company, though offshore, is run by a U.S. citizen, right? Call me paranoid, but unless this guy moves overseas, this ISP is vulnerable. Also, Vanatu is a small country, and Sealand's status as a country is only at the tacit sufferance of the United Kingdom--if either had information wanted by either of those governments, diplomatic or even military threats could be made. And all that's ruling out the possibility that the whole thing is a honeypot (a la Safeweb awhile back) to see just what it is people seem to want anonymity for.

    I would love to see encryption and anonymity thrive, but I doubt seriously that it will be allowed to become commonplace for U.S. citizens.

    --

    Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.