Slashdot Mirror
FCC Rules VoIP Must Be Tappable
pengie2 writes "The FCC has unanimously approved the U.S. Justice Department's bid to expand CALEA to broadband and VoIP networks, according to reports from SecurityFocus and News.com. This means, following a mandatory public comment period, service providers will have to wire their networks for easy law enforcement surveillance, the way phone companies do now. The feds have wanted this for a long time." Ebon Praetor adds a link to Reuters' version, writing "In addition, the FCC has decided that the push-to-talk, or walkie-talkie, functions available on phones from Nextel should also be subject to the same tapping regulations that regular phones are."
is the FCC getting more permission to sniff my packets...
up 12 days, 22:30, 2 users, load averages: 993.20, 994.21, 994.56
*makes note to limit user processes...
previous news: fcc good
this news: fcc bad
*confused*
I guess me and my terrorist buddies will just have to go back to using encrypted email.
Encryption should be so much easier with VOIP, since the data is already digital...
Can they make this illegal?
PGP Phone. I don't care if it's law enforcement or not. I want to place a phone call in privacy and frankly I don't trust a huge organisation like the police to use their powers sparingly.
Encryption is the way gents.
Simon.
How do they plan to tap encrypted VOIP traffic? Of course the majority of phone calls won't be encrypted. However, the criminals that would be tapped I assume would use end to end encryption?
$1.99 web hosting
you know Michael wanted to post this so bad his fucking nutz hurt. Think about it, check some history and share his pain!
So what does this mean for Asterisk?
I bet the phone-tapper-guys do great in the stock market via illegal insider trading off of tapped messages from sales guys calling home. Worse, such insider trading would be extremely hard to catch because the person committing the crime has little to do with the companies involved.
You don't know it's VoIP data until you sniff the packets. I guess this means they can monitor any and all data traffic to look for VoIP. And, of course, they aren't going to poke around the non-VoIP packets. *ahem*
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
...do the feds not realise that the calls don't actually pass through a central point between the phones (only the signalling)...
Is the FCC good or evil?
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Immigration Canada
"The USA has declared all sorts of encryption illegal because too many people are using encryption to encrypt their VOIP sessions. President Bush ( :'( ) says the only way to fight terror is through banning encryption... Everywhere!"
10 years from now i bet we all have an embedded chip that allows the government to "tap" our thoughts in case we are thinking about doing something illegal...
Of course, if you tunnel it through SSH they have to crack the encryption.
What's going to happen as voice service becomes more and more decentralized? What about Skype? AIM? Streaming ogg files over a SSH tunnel or IPsec?
What about open source VoIP packages? Is anyone who sets one up suddenly a "provider?"
Does voice chat over AIM / MSN messanger need to be tappable yet? How long till they go after this.
Is it illegal to write a small voice chat application with some encryption without a backdoor for the feds?
I'm sorry but there is no way to stop people from comunicating privately over the internet if they want to. Its a losing battle, thats costing companies that do fine work, such as VoIP far too much money.
Glad I don't live in the states, will just have to stengthen the old cypher text.
Tell me how can they be sure in their efforts to sniff packets away merrily like the junkies of privacy invasion they are that all those packets belong to US citzens or are intend to for US citzens?
Did old Abe really want to be remember as the father of Big Brother?
Or, are the protocols for VoIP being engineered to make it hard to do this (in a similar way to how WEP was designed to make it hard to secure wireless networks)? If so, how exactly?
...which in this case is the VoIP provider. For example, let's say you have Vonage - the taps would occur there. They aren't going to bother sniffing packets, they're going to tap the stream at the CO, same as they would do with a landline.
Ditto for Nextel's PTT stuff.
Of course, you could use a VoIP provider that is based outside the US. That is going to present a problem for law enforcement.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Voice Encryption Tools
I still like PGPfone tho... for pure historical reasons.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Nevertheless, we also have a compelling public interest in keeping Big Brother from using the backdoor to enforce stuff that goes beyond keeping the peace and encroaches on our fundamental (and hard earned!) liberties.
The bottom line is that blocking all law enforcement access to these technologies is going to cost people their lives, but letting the pigs sniff around where they don't belong is going to ruin everyone's life. This is just another balancing act in the giant circus we call a democratic society.
So, rather than moaning about one side of this argument or another, doesn't it make sense to focus on getting just the right sweet spot in between?
Oh there are plenty of ways to get around that sort of stuff, besides I wouldn't think most terrorists are using one of the big 5 american ISPs atleast not on both ends.
How about encrypt and encode your messages into images and then post them on places like fark or deviantart? Simple enough. I'm not stupid why would a terrorist be?
How about our good friends in the government get off their lazy asses and start passing legislations that will make people hate us less not more?
Have one-on-one discussions with no one else around, preferably in a windowless room, randomly picked in an abandoned or seldom-used building. But the way things are going, those sorts of conversations will become illegal or monitored, too.
Who says I'm going to call my friends using VOIP in the future anyway? What stops me from writing an unregulated program that does the same thing and does it over an encrypted channel using openssl ? As mobile phones become more powerful and connected directly to high-speed internet what stops me from doing the same thing there? Furthermore is I'm serious about doing something illegal why am I not using pgp to talk about it?
So much for VOIP. The FCC needs to be toppled.
Nothing IPSec doesn't solve.
tunnel it transparently over ipsec ala isakmpd or frees/wan and tell Reverend^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HAttorney General Ashcroft to go fuck himself (but not anywhere near singing calico cats).
<tinfoil hat>why? ipsec will give you maybe 30 seconds of chat before our buddies at ft. meade will be able to crack it </tinfoil hat>
vodka, straight up, thank you!
You can "sniff" my VoIP all you like....when it is encrypted *before* and *after* transmission. Enjoy that.
;-)
And pray tell, how might you being telling voice from data.....ah, catch, listen closely.....when it has all been encoded to text, encrypted and sent. Hrm..interesting. You say no non-vox=like transmissions? Yeah, ssh sucks a big one, i know - tough to use and all
Is it easy for your average hacker to tap VOIP?
This keeps coming up here on /. whenever the FCC talks about "VoIP". They're not talking about all computer-to-computer peer-to-peer realtime audio connects, they're talking about VoIP services that result in a network of people you can "dial" that more or less resemble a phone network. It's those that they're regulating and basically putting on the same playing field as existing phone services.
Would this mean that if i want to make my own communications equipment, it would be illegal to use it without having a way built in for the government from listening in.
Say I wanted to use a PDA with a 802.11b card to speak to other users using the same equipment, using my special program. Would this be illegal? What about the voice chat function in Yahoo chat?
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
128 Bit encryption - easy to code your own algorythm, easy to impliment, and easy to use. Are the feds Reaallly gonna spend all that time breaking conversations? Cause I know if they were already breaking emails, theyd be awful busy...
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
At least when they tap it they wont know what you are saying..
Its really none of their business that my wife called asking to pick up some milk on the way home..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
what a waste of time. i doubt terrorists are using cellphones anyways.
That sack of no-nutz is the most paranoid, anit-gov,anti-do-anything sack i've seen in years. EVERY story that sack posts is about security, government, aliens, privacy, and the like. Read and search and think a little, tool-sack. It'll do you some good: Michael is a liability and pain of Slashdot. Period.
I know this will upset the /. gang, but I have no problem with the FBI being able to monitor conversation between criminals.
As the cliche goes, if you're not a criminal, you have nothing to worry about. If you're paranoid, I'd guess you shut up anytime a cop comes within hearing distance.
Do we have a right to privacy? Sure. Do we have a right to keep criminal conversations private? No. Is this subject to abuse? Sure. Will we be abused by criminals who conspire in private? Of course.
Given the choice between giving criminals the freedom to conspire in private or the ability of the FBI to wiretap criminals, I've no problem opting for the former.
In any case, the net is a public place. Nothing there is private.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
"So, rather than moaning about one side of this argument or another, doesn't it make sense to focus on getting just the right sweet spot in between?"
Unfortunately the citizentry has neglected their government, and really don't know how even if they had the will. This whole mess didn't come about the past few years, but took decades. And it will take about the same to get it back, even with a bloody revolution.
The police will get a warrant with your name on it and take it to your ISP and tell them to tap your VoIP traffic. Your ISP will recognize it the same way your receivers client recognizes it. If it's encrypted the police will know you are using encryption. If your worth enough to them, they'll crack it.
They've had it all along for the landlines, there's no reason to think they'd change their mind at this juncture.
IIRC the FCC had no ability to enforce such a ruling, even if their rulings were actually law; which to my knowledge they're not.
All the primary sources refer to it as Carrier-Grade Voice over Packet (CGVoP). Only the news articles (and people who rely on them) are confused.
... and the ability to declare anyone an 'enemy combatant' without access to a lawyer or any due process ...
So let me get this straight: are republicans _for_, or _against_ intrusive government, cause at this point I just don't know.
Man I'm glad I live in Canada.
so, you just write your own packet VOIP and throw in some industrial grade encryption...
meh
If I were to set up a VPN link between 2 sites and and added VoIP phones on each end? Or used sound cards, for that matter? Seems like all they will be able to monitor is conversations through the big-name services, not anyone with the ability to buy and configure a pair of $50 routers with VPN.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
All the computers in the world working together cannot crack reasonable crypto.
If you criminalize privacy, only criminals will have privacy.
engineers are all basically high-functioning autistics who have no idea how normal people do stuff
Two ears good, four ears better, eh?
I have no problem with them being able to, either. What I have a problem with is them restricting business adn free trade to *ensure* that they are able to do it.
Oh, and I think you meant 'latter'.
You don't think the FBI monitors the mafia? It's kind of, er, a pastime for FBI agents to spy on organized crime.
You are standing in an open server west of a blue house, with a boarded front door. There is an Exchange mailbox here.
This ruling probably sounds much more harmful than it really is. Your standard POTS line, for instance, is tappable. We've been living with this ruling all of our lives.
"FCC Rules VoIP Must Be Tappable"
I'm not worried. The poor aren't worth tapping.
Actually, that is my point. They monitor the Mafia's phones and other communications. So they have to agree to meet in person at a random place, usually one they haven't been to.
Why zero-value ... well when you are using a dedicated (real/virtual) circuit/channel, then wire tapping is no/little problem. However, encrypted virtual channel VoIP may not be easily tapped, and (I suspect) there are a few ways to very the path/packet. So, if you don't/can't tap the access/origination circuit and/or the destination termination, then .... VoIP in a sort of encrypt-jumping and path-hopping algorithm may be a little tough to tap. ... pick your path through 37 points/jumps and you use radio-protocol (the Rogere-Wilco-Out stuff) for the time delay problem. ... you might catch something horrible or there is a pregnant pause ... in technology innovation.
>
Then again there is always PGP encrypted P2P
>
Controlling Technology is like fucking without a condom
>
I am sure this will help monitor the common law abiding citizens. Just like Gun-Control keeps guns away from criminals and their organizations.
>
Then again maybe the above ain't no problem to tap. We should all always know that we are being monitored for the good of the nation and blessings of god.
>
OldHawk777
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Obviously you aren't familar with the proposal. The tapping is done by VoIP service providers. They know what traffic is VoIP (basically all of it) and what is not.
It's not like the FBI has an easy time of obtaining a wire tap. In fact, they've got to jump through a number of complicated hoops in order to get permission to do so.
Under 18 USCA 2518, the FBI has to apply for a warrant from a court before it can obtain a wire tap. This isn't your ordinary search warrant either. In the criminal justice realm, it's referred to as a "superwarrant."
There's a limit on how long the government can tap your phone for before it has to go back and re-apply. In addition, they've got to show a) the type of information the tap is going to obtain, and b) that there's no other way to get the kind of information they're looking for, other than a wiretap.
There are a few caveats for situations involving national security, organized crime, and immanent danger of death or serious injury, but even there, the agency intercepting the wire communications has to apply for a superwarrant within 48 hours of starting the tap.
Oh, and if they tap you, or try to get a warrant and fail, they've got to let you know within 90 days of ceasing surveilance (or of the denial of the warrant application).
It's not like the government is running around tapping your phone lines willy-nilly.
--AC
for some reason i think i would be less offended if they just did it, rather than asking permission and GETTING IT!!!
The More Laws, the less Justice --Marcus Tullius Cicero
Nothing on the internet is private until you decide you want to have a private conversation and use cryptography. Why don't you remove all your clothes and live naked? You could be concealing weapons after all!
Isn't that frickin' magic card?
Just think, if you're a terrorist and you know thay any communication that you make is subject to tapping what would you do about it?
You'd probably find a way to make your call blend in. I mean speaking in code.
Take this example.
"I just talked to mom. She said that she might need surgery on her colon. You should give her a call."
Sounds harmless, but what if it means
"I just talked to [the boss]. She[or he] said that [the time might be right to strike the power plant in city X]. You should [prepare and wait for the go signal]."
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
You can use VoIP with IPSec to secure your phone calls, as long as both sides have the right software installed. The IPSec encryption algorithms are up to you, so if you want to use Elliptic curve cryptography (as donated to OpenSSl by Sun), you can.
foo mane padme hum
The feds have access to existing phone lines, they have access to internet traffic, why shouldn't they also have access to VoIP traffic?
Eventually VoIP will be like email, with the option to use PGP or another form of encryption at both ends.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Want to know what's worse? Many phone companies outsource their wiretapping to... VeriSign.
The idea that we should give up some of our freedoms to be safer is worrisome because it's a slippery slope. There's also discussion in the US of postponing elections because the terrorists might be planning to strike the polls. (Isn't this disturbingly similar to the way Hitler assumed power?)
On one hand, who can argue with the idea that the government should be able to thwart terrorist attacks? One the other, where does the freedom-for-safety exchange end?
The use of cryptography on the Internet is not regulated by the FCC as much as they would like it to be. In any case, administrative law is not binding here.
No doubt the Feds will push it and we'll have to get a Supreme Court ruling.
If you are a service provider (read charge money) you have to provide the feds the ability to wiretap/look at email/im when they present a warrant.
Nextel PTT has been CALEA compliant for years.
http://www.askcalea.net/
This is nothing new.
From the FAQ:
Who must be CALEA-compliant?
All telecommunications carriers as defined by Section 102(8) of CALEA. Basically, this includes all entities engaged in the transmission of switching of wire or electronic communications as a common carrier for hire.
Who must be CALEA-compliant?
All telecommunications carriers as defined by Section 102(8) of CALEA. Basically, this includes all entities engaged in the transmission of switching of wire or electronic communications as a common carrier for hire.
I recently experienced some serious drop-out problems with my VoicePulse VOIP service.. So I decided to take some packet dumps and see what I could determine with ethereal.
Well, the protocol analysis was excellent. And, sure enough, the dump of the data produced an audio file easily played with XMMS. I was shocked at how easy this was (and once again at how good ethereal is). I no longer have any illusions of privacy due to the 'obscurity' or complexity of the protocols.
So, next time your VOIP provider plays dumb over drop outs, give them a protocol analysis and an audio record of the problem.
Yay!
...
*a few minutes pass*
Your Rights Online: FCC Rules VoIP Must Be Tappable
Boo!
--
Power to the Peaceful
It's not paranoia. These days people are being arrested for carrying anti-Bush signs.
Test 1 2 3 4
Tame.
EU is currenly planning 1-3 year mandatory data retention for all Internet traffic data. The process is right now at the member states' goverments (E.g. the Finnish goverment just decided to support the initiative but the parliament has to still agree..) So for all Europeans, contacting your MP would be a very good idea..
More info here:
Statewatch - EU and Data retention
V.
Cryptography doesn't confer a right to privacy. It is analagous to hiding.
Would you argue that the FBI should not be allowed to look for criminals who are hiding? Who use coded messages? If not, why would you assert that the use of cryprography to hide a message means the FBI has no right to see that message?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Or are you saying the government should not be able to collect evidence in criminal investigations, even with a warrant?
"How about our good friends in the government get off their lazy asses and start passing legislations that will make people hate us less not more?"
People have been hating us since the beginning. That King George was pretty pissed off. Then there's that whole Hawaii thing. Or the Phillipines. So what makes the present special?
Good criminals and terrorists, as do spammers, will try to stay one step ahead of the countermeasures.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Good.
Non, je ne veux pas coucher avec toi ce soir.
I seriously doubt the government has some uber-leet technology that lets them crack any encryption. Encryption can do two things and two things only.
1. Encryption can secure a communications link. Properly used Alice can talk to Bob with reasonable protection from Eve tapping the link halfway between them.
2. Encryption can secure stored data. Properly used, Alice could protect the files on her keychain should Eve filch it out of her purse.
Encryption will not:
1. Secure the ends of a link. If Eve physically installs a keylogger in Alice's keyboard then it doesn't matter what crypto she uses. Come to think of it, the old saw applies: all bets are off if an attacker has physical access to a terminal.
2. Preclude treachery and incompetence. Law enforcement may have threatened the other end of your link who is letting them see everything in return for light treatment. A while back, NPR ran a story about police officers who took over a kiddy porn website and roped in a pile of customers. Encryption doesn't help if the other end of the conversation isn't who you think it is. Maybe the other side left his passphrase taped under his keyboard. "Rubber-hose cryptanalysis" is what they call it when the police starting leaning on you.
3. Prevent the government from taking an interest in you. Certain uses of it may even draw their interest. Staying out of view of larger predators is often the best defense.
4. Conceal the existence of the link. Often the government only needs to prove Alice talked to Bob on 7/24/02 at 3:24p.
5. Somewhat OT but something else encryption doesn't do: Allow Alice to share data with Bob while simultaneously preventing Bob from divulging it to Eve. Both #1 and #2 apply. Bonus points if you understand what this scenario applies to.
What this all boils down to is that encryption is largely ineffective against old-fashioned police work. It is also worth noting that Al Queda and others are notorious for using low-tech communications and isolated organizational cells. Don't give those hunting you terminals and only the minimum in physical links to play with. If you're a criminal, try to work alone if possible and keep your mouth shut. If you are a crook or a terrorist, communications are the least of your problems. Your partners in crime and your own mouth are far more dangerous.
I know that some of these voip providers MUST be tapping lines already. maybe not on a large scale like the feds would want but im sure that theres no way that some voip lines arent tapped already. Does anyone know how theyre currently tapping these lines? Are they doing it on the PSTN gateways? On frames somewhere? On your Terminal Adapater even???! anyone know?
So we get a story saying the FCC says TiVO can be shared... then they come right back with tapping VOIP. I guess you just gotta roll with it. Score one for the bad guys.
?SYNTAX ERROR IN LINE 42
and again the same debate which has been held many times before. At the moment being a member of for instance greenpeace is not illegal. But what if they try to name stopping a shipload of illegal wood coming in the harbour and politicians start labelling this act as "terroristic". There's a whole bunch of activities which are morally right, but which certain governements could call "illegal". Though this bill is no problem at the moment, it's a small step to use it in a way nobody (except them of course) would want them too.
What about a program like PicoPhonem Would they still be able to tap these programs?
http://www.vitez.it/picophone/ or DharmaPhone http://www.datavoice.es/DharmaPhone/en/default.ht
Many businesses use encryption to prevent commercial espionage.
In some cases governments have intercepted commercial secrets from foreign business interests and passed them on to their local corporations to use for their advantage.
Encryption is a vital tool of a free market.
*sigh* Looks like me and my al quaida buddies will have to start importing our VoIP gear ;)
Damn, don't you just hate those shipping fees?
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
We are only talking about centralized networks. This is not likely to pertain to or be enforceable regarding decentralized or private networks. So if my company has a voip tunnel with another company then it all works well.
Why can't someone and his criminal buddies just set up a SIP-based VOIP channel between them and encrypt the traffic? Seems safer that way....
Or better yet-- there are areas where VOIP would be *required by law* to be encrypted, such as between doctors discussing information protected under the HIPAA act.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Hope you feel safe, 'cause if you gave up all those rights for ... whatever it was you got, then you just got angloed down, mi amigo.
Yeah, right.
...what will happen when major telcos start employing quantum cryptography...
... the ... eeeeeagle ... soar!
Ashcroft: All telecommunications are belong to us - intercept...intercept!
Techie: But Johnny, you canna change the laws of physics
Ashcroft (non-musically): Let the eeeeeagle soar!
Techie: But...
Ashcroft (in the style of Homer making a point): I said let
...and, on the seventh day, God switched off his Mac.
If I encrypt something with a 256 bit key not even lord almighty will be able to decrypt my babbling in a reasonable timeframe. :-)
Is anyone else out there starting to get angry? How long until the Deparment of Homeland Security implants RFID chips in our necks? How long until employees are forced to get their employer's logo tattooed on their face after changing their last name and waiving all of their human rights in the employment contract.
Geeez..... what kind of America are we living in?
America, previously land of the free, now home of the Corporate controlled puppet government run by lawyers with the best healthcare taxpayer money can buy.
Am I the only one that's worried that VOIP must be deemed tappable in order to be implemented? It scares me that we must legislate something that simple into products. Are we that far behind - shouldn't the spook originazations already have such technology down cold, and have the ability to listen in without really trying?
Hey world, please legislate your VOIP so that we can listen in because we're too technologically stupid to figure it out otherwise. We appreciate your support.
You are. If they are really serious about this, it's going to mean massive investments for serviceproviders. One thing is collecting customer statistics about source/destination and type of traffic - actually sniffing it, and sending it to central location(FBI/CIA whatever) is an entirely different matter that requires special hardware. E.g. a Juniper monitoring PIC (special expensive linecard for special expensive routers used by serviceproviders) doesn't come cheap, and the money has to come from somewhere - either from increased ISP fees, or increased tax in the unlikely event that the government is going to foot the bill.
Speaking of countries caving in: don't forget the Australian Open Source electronic voting system isn't Open Source any more.
They can in fact tap your phone without a warrant as long as they file for one within three days of tapping the line. My question is what happens if it is denied?
Also, the notice provision does not apply in national security cases. If it did then sneak-and-peak searches (for which you are never notified) would make even less sense. What cases aren't about national security these days? Drug pushers are terrorists, computer criminals are terrorists, money launderers are terrorists, charities are terrorist organizations and political dissent groups are terrorists trying to overthrow the government.
And you also assume too much integrity in police departments. In California they recently admitted they did willy-nilly tap phones for nearly a decade by abusing warrants for public phones.
That negates the need for court orders, and opens it up for abuse..
Thus my concern of my freedom of privacy.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The Pure Crypto Project (based on Modular Exponentiation and RSA alone)
The source code is in Python but a savvy programmer can port it to the language of their choice. For example, I recoded the 'windowed exponentation' routine in the SDLH function in C for use in some software I wrote a while ago.
Isn't Vonage a black-box turn-key solution?
And so wouldn't it be easier for users to add encryption to Skype?
And who would want to us VOIP *without* encryption after this news?
Frankly this wire tapping business has gone on long enough.
Any time a person picks up a phone to call someone, there is a subtle change in his thinking if he thinks he might be surreptitiously monitored. There are certain things you just don't say.
How is this different from meeting with someone on the street, perhaps to organize some political effort? If you think you may be overheard, it changes what you say.
(Thinking from a two hundred year old perspective,) the difference is that on the street, you can see who is listening. You know what is being said.
Secret wire taps by a third party subvert the entire process that granting the political freedom of assembly was intended to protect. If I want to speak to someone on the phone, law enforcement should be absolutely limited to compromising that other party in order to get in on the conversation. If there is a second party on the phone, I should get a little flashing light informing me that there is another listener.
I would just switch to Skype, except I have no idea how secure their encryption is either.
I wrote a really bitchy blog entry about this a while back right here, if you care.
its called the patriot act and all they need is suspicion
in addition to that lets not forget they want an expansion of both power and time (right now the patriot act is set to expire in 2005, lessee how far that gets if bush/asscroft get re-elected) for said anti-constitution
enjoy your police state and dont' forget you only get 3 national sick days per year and then we feed you to the matter disintegration chamber for spare parts so you aren't a drain on our perfectly civilized society.
and for hte mods with itchy troll fingers try the reply button you half witted scum fucks =)
I have no problem with the FBI being able to monitor conversation between criminals.
How do you design the protocol such that the FBI can decrypt it but the voyeur down the hall can't? How do you design the protocol such that I can't write an open-source implementation that uses a slightly different encryption when talking to another instance of itself? Doesn't this bring back the whole "these three lines of Perl are a weapon of mass destruction" situation from the bad old days when "crypto was outlawed, and only outlaws have PGP"?
try a windowless room - you can use a window as a microphone pickup if you're so inclined.
Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
...easy to code your own algorythm...
Whenever someone thinks that they can replace SSL/SSH with something much better that they designed this morning over coffee, their computer speakers should generate some sort of penis-shaped sound wave and plunge it repeatedly into their skulls until they achieve enlightenment.
So in otherwords, all the a-holes, dregs, and people with severe paranoia/infeiority complexes in society (corporations, collection agents, private investigators, etc) may also have access to all this since the Government doesn't do squat about them anyways.
I admit that I am quite ignorant when it comes to VoIP, but what will this entail for games that have this capability? (UT2004, etc)
Physics makes the world go 'round.
No, no, no. The word you were looking for is quantum COMMUNIACTION.
Using quantum communication has big advantages. Think about intercontinental calls. There no longer will be any delay in the conversation as quantum communication is done at lightspeed...
Of course there is NOT intent WHATSOEVER to encrypt the communication.
Hereby I claim a patent.
Privacy is terrorism.
"Morally right" is a cultural variable. In a democracy, it is the law that counts, not an individual's moral beliefs. If that individual holds to a belief that runs counter to the law, then that individual must expect to bear the cost of violating the law. No law-abiding nation can excuse criminality simply because the criminal asserts he or she believes the criminal behavior is moral.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
> These days people are being arrested
> for carrying anti-Bush signs
From reading the article it sounds like he was arrested for disobeying the police.
The Army reading list
If it makes Uncle Sam a little happier, it's not like I'm losing much to that new law, even besides the fact that I don't use VoIP. I'm quite used to using a line that can be easily tapped, and, as of right now, the most common phone I use is cellular, awesome privacy there, huh? While it's true that the government may as well have a probe up my ass 25/7 anyway, since I'm in the service, I'm not sure I would care about this if I were a civilian. Any time that this type of thing happens, the terrorists just find some way to work around it anyway, if they really don't want our intelligence agencies to know what's going on.
-- Napalm sticks to kids.
>>"Encryption is a vital tool of a free market."
Yes, but use of it does not confer a right to privacy. It simply means you want to hide your information from everyone except the recipient. E.g., your encrypted email is no more private than your unencrypted email. It is just more difficult to read.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Didn't we go through all this with Echelon? I mean, wasn't that already deemed legal and installed at all the ISP's point of entry onto the 'net? Maybe I'm wrong.
CLICK! BEEP! BEEP! BEEP!
Awe..there goes my little light on Ashcroft's desk again...Darn!
Isn't the FCC appointed by the executive branch along with the bulk of the secretary level people at the DOJ? So the Executive branch is asking the Excutive branch to give the Executive branch the power to tap our phones... and the Executive branch unanimously approved it's own actions... The legislation that comes out of this will look seriously inbred... for good reason.
...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
Possibly. But since you seem to acknowledge that a given population has a contrary view point, do they have a valid reason?
but I have no problem with the FBI being able to monitor conversation between criminals.
Sure. I'd venture that on a pure principle level, most people don't.
The problems usually begin with what "criminal" means. The ones who write the law have a pretty good idea of how they want the law to be used, and at the start everyone thinks it's a super idea. "Criminal" is written pretty broadly, trying to cover "the bad guys".
As the cliche goes, if you're not a criminal, you have nothing to worry about. If you're paranoid, I'd guess you shut up anytime a cop comes within hearing distance.
Later on, however, the enforcers would really like to make use of this provision because it's pretty potent. So the definition of "the bad guys" shifts a little through any number of legitimate means, such as changing the scope of what a criminal is to adding new crimes that fall under the original scope.
Then, a set of events takes place and all of the sudden it's really bad to be a "terrorist". And a terrorist is sort of loosely defined, but definitely someone who is against "the state" and what it represents, using any and all means at their disposal, including disinformation and propaganda.
Do we have a right to privacy? Sure. Do we have a right to keep criminal conversations private? No. Is this subject to abuse? Sure. Will we be abused by criminals who conspire in private? Of course.
What's a "criminal conversation"? Because history assures us with countless examples that those who make the decision on what a "criminal conversation" is rarely do it with YOUR best interests in mind.
Is discussing with other like minded individuals your displeasure with the current George W. Bush administration and planning activities to educate the public on the facts and what they can do to kick him out of office a "criminal conversation"?
Want an example? The PATRIOT act, which did away with such minor things like habeous corpus (considered by many to be the cornerstone of our justice system and made no one above the law, one of the fundamental checks and balances ) and passed to deal with "extraordinary threat" in these "extraordinary times"..... being used for a copyright case. Legislation that bypasses most of the fundamental US Constitutional rights would NEVER be applied to anything frivolous.
Given the choice between giving criminals the freedom to conspire in private or the ability of the FBI to wiretap criminals, I've no problem opting for the former.
This is the beauty of the whole thing right here. Trivial means in the form of encryption exist that totally negate any benefit law enforcement would gain from such legislation. Most likely, these days, all the necessary tools exist on your computer right now (openssl).
The only people that this would be of assistance against are... well, idiots. Since you know you're going to be discussing things of particular interest to law enforcement, and they have the means to intercept it, it's in your interest to encrypt your communications. So, from a practical sense, the only information you're going to get out of this is that two people spoke to each other which is useless in court.
So... now what? We now have a system in place that's capable of catching none but the most utterly incompetent criminals and can be abused by the government against law abiding citizens.
I know! Let's outlaw encryption. That'll learn 'em.
In any case, the net is a public place. Nothing there is private.
This seems to be particularly specious reasoning. By the same token I can say that the entire planet is a public place, ther
Really, you watch too much tv.
You are exactly the kind of citzen they want! You are afraid of your own shadow!
Ask any dictator and he will tell you that the easiest way to control the people is by making them afraid. The goverment and the media is trying to do exactly that! They supersize the threats, so that you are so afraid that you are willing to give up your LIBERTY!
I'm not saying that there isn't a threat, I'm just saying that it is WAY smaller than fox news makes it look like.
You should watch some international news for a while. You would realize that there are many countries with a tiny crime rate, and most of them CARE A LOT about the civil liberties.
Welcome to the land of the free.
and this is why i quit reading slashdot.
ironic paradox intended
Americorp, duh.
Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
As the cliche goes, if you're not a criminal, you have nothing to worry about.
Of course you have something to worry about. It may not be criminal but can still be used for character assasination and misused in too many other ways.
Do we have a right to keep criminal conversations private? No.
You have a right to privacy, full stop. There is no clause stating I waive that right so somebody can judge the conversation's legality. You either have a right to privacy or you don't.
No it's not illegal, and if anyone RTFA they'd know that this FCC rule only applies to VoIP stuff that connects to the traditional phone network ala Vonnage.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
What if, what if, what if. So many what if's...what if you built a scarecrow and then took it apart?
I guess we better do away with all laws 'cause you never know: What if somone in the future abuses one of them?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Silly argument. No right, including a right to privacy, extends to criminal behavior. If you conspire to commit a crime, you can hide behind a right to privacy.
E.g., you have a right to free speech. However, libel and slander are crimes. Your right to speak freely will not protect you from charges of libel or slander.
E.g., we have a right to assemble. If that assembly becomes a mob, we have committed a crime.
So, no, rights are not absolute.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
... has control over its own immigration, while the rest of the provinces take what the federal government (which is run by Quebecers, BTW) dishes out.
Who's the idiot who moderated this informative?
--- good grief ---
You can always say No.
I expect it will be priced within reach in less than 5 years. When this happens, the spooks will be screwed. Anybody, and everybody will have secure, untappable communications.
My rights don't need management.
I wonder how many slashdotters are black?
Black people have always known that our rights are revokable. It seems to me that only when it starts happening to white people that small things like "civil liberties" get to be a problem.
I expect this post to be marked troll or flamebait at best, but it's truly not meant to be that way. It's just the way I see the world because my husband doesn't even tell me how many times he gets pulled over by the police anymore. It's a routine occurence, not worth notice anymore.
Our church group is decidedly anti-Bush. I think most black folks are, despite the photo-op pics you'll see everywhere. Anyway, we had police officers taping our services now again because our preacher speaks out against the corrupt politics in our city and nation.
There is no need to protest because no one in authority cares and is probably behind it anyway. We simply did the next best thing and got a local cable station to air our services. No more police, they can just set the VCR now.
I see young men get harrassed by the police and their pockets turned out because their skin is dark. I know better than to go to the movies with a large purse or maybe even a purse at all on a crowded weekend day, because no matter how large the white woman's purse in front of me, mine will be the one to be searched.
As far as I can see, white people for too long have thought they were immune from this type of thing. It's probably not even the slashdot crowd. It's be the parents and the grandparents of the slashdot crowd.
I saw a post earlier here that asked, who will begin the revolution? I think it will begin right here.
Do we really need legislation about tapping push-to-talk phones? I mean, if you really want to know what they're saying, just stand next to the jerk using push-to-talk. Or even in the next room.
(Is it just me or do people using push-to-talk speak even LOUDER than when using the phone non Star Trek stylie?)
The U.S. Post Office became a shill for Hollywood.
Pretty much sums it up, don't you think?
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
PGP was available to protect sensitive text since at least 1991. I have no doubt that some variant of it, or perhaps an entirely new encryption scheme, will be developed for VoIP phones in response to this.
If nothing else, the business world will probably demand it.
Keep the peace(es).
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
VoIP needs to be IP on both ends. The PSTN (public switched telephone network) needs to be abandoned ASAP. Everything should eventually just be IP to IP. There would no longer be phone numbers; you reach people by a domain name and other mnemonic identity. But the important part is that all communications will then be strictly end-to-end, and to anything in between, will just be a bunch of scrambled bits.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
If I encrypt something with a 256 bit key not even lord almighty will be able to decrypt my babbling
When dealing with God, consider your computer physically compromised. He can read the key from your computer's data bus. He can read all the adulterous jpegs on your computer's hard drive. You need help, and help is Christ.
The DMCA's circumvention ban doesn't apply to law enforcement wiretaps. 17 USC 1201(e).
as more civil liberties are ripped away.
As usual.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Don't worry, you can trust them.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
I'll love it when someday the FBI declares that all voice-chat applications must be tappable. So they'll insert backdoors into the next version of Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell, and their agents can sit all day and listen to teens discuss the sabotage of poison-gas canisters (in between homosexual puns)
Two problems with this...
Firstly, the FCC, a self-appointed, non-elected staff brought this into law.
Second, it was put up by the US Justice Department. The US Justice Department does NOT have the power to CREATE laws! It is the legislature's job to create laws. This completely offsets the balance of power and checks and balances.
I wish I could make laws to make /my/ job easier too. They can go to hell, I'm so sick of this one-sided freedom BS.
You forgot one more question.
"Will we be abused by FBI, lawenforcement, etc. whenever they feel like it? Of course."
You may not want your privacy, but don't ruin it for the rest of us. Its only a matter of time before things slide down a bit on the slippery slope and things that were once perfectly legal and necessary for this to remain the free country it is will become illegal. Its already started.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
BSA ppl don't get any trouble getting a warrant to dig through your data operating on the assumption that everyone uses unliscensed software.They're not even cops.
How long before I can go get a wiretap on my neighbor? As a matter of fact - if they're going to be like this, then why not? As long as everybody can violate each other I don't mind.
Isn't the point of this ruling that it is now easier to tap VoIP, no just legal? I mean, if they can get a tap, they can probably get a data tap, too. The point of this ruling was to make VoIP services make it easy to tap.
Just trying to say that you didn't just lose more rights than you've already lost to the Patriot Act.
Guns don't kill people. Its the person that aims and/or pulls the trigger.
Automobile don't kill people. Its the person behind the wheel.
Planes don't crash. Its the engineer that designed the plane. (NO, its not the pilot error... it always boils down to the engineer during man-machine interface design stage and stress testing.)
Food don't kill people. Its the food prep person.
Face it... Tools will remain abundance and abound (even, shudder, the H-bomb), its the person behind the tool.
Nothing to do with freedom here. Its personal responsibility toward society that we value here.
Try reading a book called Nineteen Eighty-Four, or watch Demolition Man... Either extremes is possible in your what if, what ifs senario. You may not have any foresight into the implication of this new ruling, but at least I'll have privacy when you don't.
"And really, isn't this 72 virgins thing just a little overrated? I mean, after three or four, doesn't the thrill kind of wear off? And by Virgin 23, you're going to be begging for a pro, someone who knows when and when not to use their teeth."
--Dennis Miller
5/31/02
How would they able to tap if VOIP is running over VPN?
Whoever thinks that they are going to wiretap all VoIP networks at the FBI is living in dreamland. Let's take a brief look at a quick VoIP system that I'm going to design. I'll even publish the source code, right here on Slashdot. It will take me a few seconds to write:
/dev/dsp|nc localhost 7000"
# smallvoip.sh
# VoIP software capable of bypassing FBI wiretap regulations.
# Warning: use or posession of this software may be a federal crime in the United States of America. Download this software at your own risk.
# Copyright 2004, 0x0d0a, released under the GPL
# Usage: smallvoip remote-username remote-ip-address
# You must have a shell account on the remote machine.
# Run on each of the two machines involved in the call.
# Duplex audio support required.
# TODO: pass through lame or oggenc for better bandwidth usage. This will make the second line slightly longer.
# LIMITATIONS: only one user per host at once
# I recommend setting up public-key ssh authentication with this software.
nc -l -p 7001 >/dev/dsp &
ssh -R 7000:`hostname`:7001 $1@$2 "cat
Hmm. My high-security, encrypted Internet phone doing VoIP.
Now, I have to ask the people in charge of Homeland Security: do you really, truly, honestly think that you have *any* hope of keeping anyone from writing such a two-line program? Any *IX user with a bit of experience could write this piece of software. In addition, the fact that it contains voice data is completely undetectable to the outside world, so there is no practical way to "catch" someone using such a system.
It is true that this is a very simple program, but it can also be very easily extended into a full-blown encrypted voice communication program, without the minor limitations here that make this annoying for day-to-day use. In addition, there are a vast number of extant Internet systems for communicating that cannot be wiretapped by the FBI -- PGP/GPG contains no back doors to allow wiretapping of email communications. Frost (on the Freenet platform) can disguise the very fact that an association exists between two users. These systems are rarely used, but they are also not hard to deploy, and if the FBI insists on forcing conventional voice communication to be breakable, there is little incentive not to use systems such as the one that I have demonstrated here.
May we never see th
Nah, that's just paranoid slashdot propaganda. Pay no heed to it. The sun is shining and life is fun.
Of course you're correct in this in theory. But nowadays a lot of laws are made on a more or less ad-hoc basis. Something happens, ie the WTC-bombing, and politicians throw up one or more new laws. What is criminal and what is not is not only decided by the politicians but also by the flood of media-attention something gets. There's talk about making cryptography illegal, so should we just adhere to that law? The governement in Orwell's 1984 had the same opinion, if you're not doing something illegal why would you mind? I mind knowing the governement (or someone else) is watching my every move. In Holland where I live the governement is talking about instituting a new intelligence agency which has the right to spy on people even if they're not suspects of a crime. Also the governement is going to pass a law which obliges ISP's to record all email- and surfingtrafic and store it for a year. If that's going to be the "democratic moral" then I'd rather be someone who resists the "society". Last (cheap shot on /. of course), what if linux is stated as "criminal" because it infringes on patents, shouldn't we use it anymore and hand over our life to ie microsoft?
And I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat (yet), I'm carrying my cellphone with me day and night, so every step I make could be tracked if the governement wants to. Sometimes though I start wondering if I should put my cellphone someplace safe or just get rid of it. The direction the whole law-making process is going is scaring me more and more.
What if the FBI had a history of abusing powers to spy on people for polical reasons, not becuase they were criminals?
Oh wait, they do. So why assume they will behave differently? Isn't suggesting they will only use it on criminals rather more speculative than assuming they won't, based on past experience?
Or do civil rights activists, anti-war activists and those with socialist political beleifs not deserve privacy either?
America has given up its freedom for a false sense of security...
From reading the article it sounds like he was arrested for disobeying the police.
Try FINISHING reading the article! Hell, try getting to the bottom of page one at least!
A judge threw out the case because it was not a legal arrest and because the officer's order was not lawful.
The arrest was an abuse of force and a violation of constitutional rights. The judge scolded the officer for trampling on free speech.
If you get to page two there's a second arrest described: So, naturally, they arrested him. Asked why, the officer said, "It's the content of your sign that's the problem." Arrested solely for the content of his speech. That arrest was thrown out by a judge as invalid as well.
When you have the government abusing false arrests to suppress speech, and using threats of false arrests to intimidate countless other people into "voluntarily" confinement in "free speech zones", that's a pretty serious problem. I know it drips of irony, but I'd call that UnAmerican. And it sure appears the judge in at least the first case agreed.
If you make it to page three you'll see there are civil lawsuits underway for these ILLEGAL ARRESTS and violations of civil rights.
And there's a lovely quote on page four from the spokesperson for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center (a spinoff of the Homeland Security Department) who all but outright states that a peaceful anti-war speech is a terrorist act.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
All that is happening here is that VoIP providers that connect to traditional networks are being forced to follow the same rules for wiretaps that regular carriers do. This isn't some vast expansion of wiretapping powers, this is equals being treated equally. VoIP that doesn't terminate on a POTS network isn't affected. Move along.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Just launch tcpdump or ethereal or whatever. You can get the whole conversation.
What? You don't have a key to decrypt it? And how is it MY problem?
MsN messenger Irc and others basically use servers to relay messages, and I think I would be a fool to think tht MSN Messenger isn't capable of allowing someone to peek in to my private messages; perhaps 6.2 doesn't but 6.3 could do, couldn't it?
does anyone know of a nonserver open source. method of connecting two or more people together for voice video and text, ideally cross platform which does not involve using a thirdparty such as MSN to make the connection.
finally is there any way of securing the packets so even if you can detect that communication is going on between 2 nodes you still wouldn't know what is being said.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Fine. Lets forget all the "What if's".
The Patriot act is in fact being used in copyright cases and other trivial cases. Everyone swore up and down that these "extrodinary" provisions would only be used against terrorists.
What about the numerous cases of people being falsely arrested (with judges throwing out those arrests as unlawful) merely for the content of their speech?
What about the far larger number of people being intimidated and oppressed through threats of exactly those unlawful arrests?
What about COINTELPRO and countless other cases of the FBI and others spying on law-abiding americans for purely political purposes?
You know what I think? I think we needed a hell of a lot more "What if's" before the Patriot act was passed. I think we need a lot more "What if's" in general. Sure the government exists to serve and benefit us. Sure things are proposed for our benefit. But there is a general urge for the government to expand its power and control, and to use that power and control wherever convient. Just because they are the "good guys" don't mean it would be a good idea to, for example, exempt them from Bill-of-Rights restrictions. Sure it would help police catch criminals if they didn't have to get search warrants and whatnot. Hey, they're the goodguys and they are only trying to catch criminals, right? Why not let them search your house and anyone else's house at will without a warrant? Any problem with them coming in and trashing YOUR house is only a "What if", right?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"Oh, yeah. We're tough on crime. We're so tough on crime that we're going to treat everybody as a criminal. Beat that."
Ha, ha! Nobody ever says Italy.
A $99 handheld GPS with a single waypoint in memory would make finding the target trivial.
Of course it would be smart to obscure that waypoint with a hundred or so red herrings.
Milk and grain have regulated marketing bodies.
As far as farming is concerned I think it is okay.
Most first world countries have crazy subsidies to their farmers. If my tax money goes to pay your bills because you can't survive in the free market, I get to make the rules how you sell your product. Additionally certain important resources are important and regulated, drugs, medical care, energy, water.
Secondly hemp is legal in Canada
Sorry the 9/11 attack wasn't stupid.
It worked pretty much as planned.
The part you consider 'stupid' is they died, but by their logic this isn't a problem, they considered it a cause worth dying for.
I hate Walmart because most of their products are low quality, it is messy and disorganized, and they have a poor selection.
If you don't like your job quit.
I don't hate starbucks, but I don't buy their products. They're good, but just overpriced for what you get.
But I won't be changing my networks for you anytime soon.
VOIP services such as Jeff Pulver's Free World Dialup operate as a peer to peer connection. The server is only there to establish the connection. It should be easy enough to encrypt the end points.
I personally use FWD to circumvent local toll charges from the money grubbing phone companies for calls made to a friend across town just outside of the localling area.
Perhaps I'm parenoid, but I don't need Home World Security, the FBI, or anybody else having the ability to monitor my VOIP calls. I'm also disturbed by the extensive key stroke logging that takes place at FWD. Every call that I initiate or receive whether or not completed gets logged. I had thought of circumventing the logging by simply running my own server, in effect establishing my own private network.
As far as making communications secure, I can do this now through an encrypted VPN connection. If VOIP wire tapping actually materializes, new secure protocols (VOIPs://, or PGP for VOIP) will surely rise to meet this challange.
Education by fiction or bad movies. You're doing well.
No one has explained just how any of this would actually affect my privacy.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
all who go to heaven get'em
and yes, waging holy war will get you into heaven,
BUT terrorism is not holy war, so
all them terrorists is screwed
>> ...a lot of laws are made on a more or less ad-hoc basis
Where? Last I heard they were made in the legislatures.
>> Something happens, ie the WTC-bombing, and politicians throw up one or more new laws.
And, your problem is...? Legislatures creating law in response to events. Imagine that.
>> The governement in Orwell's 1984...
There was no Orwell's 1984. It's a novel.
Governments have always had the right, and the ability, to monitor people. That's what the police power is about. Technology makes it easier to do, but the fundamental right has been there all along. In a democracy, people can replace the politicians who made laws they don't like. Personally, I don't feel any loss of privacy or other threat from any of these developments. If the government wants to spend money watching me, fine, that won't affect my behavior.
As for Linux and patents, well, patents are civil, not criminal , issues, so the worst that can happen is a bunch of lawsuits. Even then, if some people have knowingly inserted patented code or algorithnms in their Linux code, they deserve what's coming, especially for abusing the trust of the Linux community. Regardless of any individual's position on software patents, it is foolish to ignore reality.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
don't forget the MTA's proposed ban of photography on subways/public transport - except with for press/written authorization.
The US is becoming an absolute disgrace.
I know this will upset the /. gang, but I have no problem with the FBI being able to monitor conversation between criminals.
I know this will upset the human rights crowd, but I have no problems with the Republicans being able to monitor conversations between Democrats.
See, the problem with allowing more and more surveillance of "criminals" is that you cannot know beforehand that something you do will be termed "criminal" in order to eavesdrop on something the Government wants to monitor. Who watches the watchmen and all that.
There was a story that claimed that Boeing won some airplane contract because someone among the "eavesdroppers" leaked Airbus bid information to them. Are you saying Airbus were "criminals"?
Are you saying that the FBI shouldn't be allowed to monitor criminal conversations because you're afraid a few non-criminals might be monitored? Are you will to give criminals complete freedom to conspire in secret?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The will not bother "cracking" the encryption. They will enter your home whether you are there or not, they will ransack your house and take any electronic equipment down to the smoke detectors. They will search this equipment with sledgehammers and crowbars, and, upon finding nothing, send you to Guantanamo to repent.
You will whine to the media, but in their minds this only serves as a warning for daring to use encryption.
Do we have a right to privacy? Sure
Amendment IV gives you a right to be secure against unreasonable search. That's no right to privacy. If everyone is monitored at all times then it's not unreasonable to be monitored.
Velkome to zee United States, Komrade.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Sounds like the truth is in the middle. He wasn't arrested simply for "carrying an anti-Bush sign", as the OP suggested. But the police weren't right in ordering him to move, either.
I call "do over".
The Army reading list
And, what grade are you in? Come back when you grow up.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
You say the PATRIOT act allows for warrantless searches. Yes, it is true that judicial oversight for searches of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records is *diminished* under PATRIOT. It's not at all clear to me how those searches relate to VoIP, although there may be ways to exploit the ditigal/analogue distinction there.
The provisions that expand FISA searches are even less relevant to this discussion, since they require a foreign intelligence need to prompt a search and they sunset in 2005 anyway.
You still need a warrant to operate a "sneak and peek" operation under PATRIOT. PATRIOT just says you don't have to tell the person they're being watched. (As far as I'm concerned, having to tell someone that you're going to watch them is as absurd as it gets in the espionage game.) Eventually, you have to be told about the search under PATRIOT anyway, and "sneak and peek" is not unconstitutional. So, no "warrantless search" issues there either.
I suspect your beef is with Section 214 of PATRIOT, which adapt the rules for obtaining "pen register" and "trap and trace" wiretaps (NEITHER of which reveal the content of a conversation--only where the calls come from, and where they go). Before PATRIOT, FISA allowed the FBI to get these taps by showing a judge that the information would be relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. No probable cause required there! Now, under PATRIOT, law enforcement can get these taps by certifying that the information would be relevant to an ongoing investigation into international terrorism. Whoa! Call off the Republic. America is DOOMED!!
Oh, and I almost forgot the kicker!! PATRIOT also clarifies that pen register and trace and trap taps apply not only to telephonic devices, but to the Internet as well. So, it's a little hard for me to see how the FCC's ruling does much more than facilitate the tap rules that basically have changed incrementally (and not nearly as drastically as you are making out) since the passage of PATRIOT.
Wait, I almost forgot the REAL kicker! The pen register/trace and trap rules SUNSET in 2005.
I'm not even gonna get into roving taps and the rest of PATRIOT. I'd rather have you explain what exactly is so dire about PATRIOT, and show us all where it violates the Constitution and how it erodes our fundamental liberty. Or are you simply passing on a popular meme that you read about on some message board and seemed to fit your idea of a worthy outrage?
That I'm exercising my constitutional right to have privacy. If they want to plant a bug because of this, this country is in a DEEP trouble.
1) How do these records relate to VoIP activity? I don't see it.
2) Section 215 will be automatically repealed in 2005, and is already the subject of numerous amendments seeking to curtail the language of the act. The ACLU's current challenge against it is ongoing, AFAIK, and may very well result in curtailment or repeal. In any case, curtailment is likely to render Section 215 consistent with DoJ's stated purposes for the provision, which is over-broadly drafted.
I'm no expert in this stuff, but I hardly lose any sleep over the FBI looking into my library or video rental records. I also suspect that this provision has a very short shelf life. Finally, I doubt there's any reading of 215 that could accomodate snooping on the contents of VoIP transmissions.
I can't speak for Toriver, but my answer is yes, and unreservedly so.
I have to say, then, that you're a fool, and a dangerous fool.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Funny, I'd say the same about you for your opposing viewpoint.
There was an Orwell's 1984. There was also a Tolkien's Return of the King. There was not an Orwell's version of the year 1984, but the statement that there was an Orwell's 1984 is entirely accurate.
Presumably, you are either an engineer or a wannabe engineer. Both are inclined to confuse facts with truth.
The original post cited Orwell's 1984 as it it had been real. It is a work of fiction.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Methinks "funny" is the wrong category -- "informative" is much more on the mark. As the up-and-coming brownshirts of Middle America are fond of yelling, if you don't like it, leave. Frankly, I'm a bit too cynical to think it can be fixed, so ...
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
You shouldn't make the assumption that most people of any world view, including religions like Islam or Christainity were raised from Birth to believe it. I was not raised from birth to believe anything, I feircly believe my religion and would give up my life for it, however my religion never asks me to take anyone else's life. My parents don't agree with my relgion my friend's don't agree with my religion it's different than what most people who have been around me my whole life have said, but I researched it and went into it with open eyes long after I'd grown up and I believe it all every bit, I believe when I die I'll go to heaven, death doesn't bother me anymore.
Presumably, you are in management or are a wannabe manager. Both refuse to acknowledge when they're wrong, and are then pricks about it. The original post cited Orwell's 1984 as a work of fiction - because the government in this work of fiction has an opinion similar to your own. Given an ambiguous statement, which you insist can be read in only one of two ways, you chose to read it in the way that covered your ass.