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?"

Comments

Invasion of Privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:encrypted

[gnuzip]

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".

Re:Canadian laws

[Abcd1234]

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.

This may be illegal

[Animats]

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.

Re:said it before, and i'll say it again....

[MoneyT]

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