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."
Encryption should be so much easier with VOIP, since the data is already digital...
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.
That's good enough for the spooks. See, even if you encrypt the content of your e-mail, you can't encrypt the headers. Sure, "subject" can be filled with nonsense, but the address is good enough to draw a line that says "X said something to Y at this date/time" which is still useful info in an intel puzzle...
Immigration Canada
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?"
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?
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.
Not if you've been raised from birth to believe that the result of said action will be that you'll go to heaven and get seven virgins. What seems stupid to us is not neccesarily stupid to others, and there's probably plenty that is not the least bit stupid to us but the rest of the world sees as incredibly stupid (I'm sure you can all think of examples).
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
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.
It's not like the government is running around tapping your phone lines willy-nilly.
Look, I don't want to pander to the tinfoil hat crowd, but I'm old enough (barely) to remember the scandal that COINTELPRO under the Nixon administration caused. Basicly, the FBI was used to spy on and discredit people and organizations that were perceived as enemies of the administration. I'm not convinced things have changed enough to prevent that from happening again. Why make it easy on them?
"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?
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.
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.
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.
It's not like the FBI has an easy time of obtaining a wire tap.
0 14242&tid=158&tid=123&tid=95&tid=1 7
But, as the First Circuit Appeals Court have recently ruled, store/forward data is not covered under wiretap regulations, so your example is invalid. See http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/30/2
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).
Unless it's Patriot-related, in which case you'll never know. And it'll *all* be Patriot-related, won't it?
Quick wafting zephyrs vex bold Jim
I'm not stupid why would a terrorist be?
The only quality that a terrorist has in spades is FANATICISM. Did Timmy McVeigh sound all that intelligent to you? Do Bin Laden's broadcasts show an analytical mind? Does the IRA really seem to have it together, organizationally speaking?
Why then the assumption that they're magnitudes of times more intelligent than the rest of the lusers out there?
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
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
Sure, but then you have seven women endlessly telling you how they've had bigger.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
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.