Wiretapping the Web Easier Than Ever

theodp writes "All the trends are toward easier to tap, says an EFF attorney in MSNBC's recap of last week's 5-0 FCC vote to require broadband and VoIP providers to provide Uncle Sam with wiretapping backdoors and a recent Court decision that stored e-mail is not protected under a strict reading of wiretap laws. Civil-liberties concerns aside, MSNBC notes the FCC is also exploring its Internet regulatory options, including placing tariffs on online newspapers and requiring e-tailers to process 911 calls."

Comments

This will..

[baryon351]

MSNBC notes the FCC is also exploring its Internet regulatory options, including placing tariffs on online newspapers and requiring e-tailers to process 911 calls."

This will move online newspapers & the like away from FCC regulatory effect.

In other words, more offshoring forced by regulation. Wonderful.

So how do we get around it?

[c0dedude]

What modern encrypted VoIP options are there? I know pgpfone, but that's old, and I know PGP for email. Is there a OSS group working on this? "...[T]he FCC is also exploring its Internet regulatory options, including placing tariffs on online newspapers and requiring e-tailers to process 911 calls." Also, how the hell do those ideas make any sense? Tarriffs on online newspapers? To do what? e-tailers to process 911 calls? I don't even know what they mean by that.

Re:GnuPG

[McDutchie]

GnuPG, PGP, and the like are only useful for communication between nerds. Mere mortals have no idea what public key encryption is, never mind how to use it. Nor do they want to bother.

There never was any expectation of privacy...

[Roached]

Even 10 years ago, there never was an expectation of privacy on the internet (which is why SSL was developed for secure web transactions). Maybe they're making it a little more plug and play than it used to be, but sniffing a network for plaintext passwords and messages has always been relatively easy.

This is really just another kick in the butt for us all to be using various forms of strong encryption (SSH, PGP, etc) as a regular part of our daily communications.

How long will this last for?

[Nikker]

Seriously though.
Right now there are *many* ways of streaming audio data from point to point across the internet. The only thing that sucks about it, is that ma bell and friends wont route your call through thier network.
Now lets say in 5 years when evreyone is using VOIP and evreyone has an internet connection in some form or another. What is to stop me from firing up my fav app and connecting a mic to my DRM enabled computer and type in your new IPv6 address?
Would we be able to bypass all the corporations entirely? How long till the phone companies get thier protocols hacked, etc?
And as always if some one is ever going to do something that is remotely illegal then they are either stupid and will get caught or use another method and get around.

Help me understand, please!

[pgnas]

What is the bigg issue here? are we afraid that the FBI is going to intercept and read our SPAM? Please do, and while you are at it, delete it for me. Seriously, am I just that naive.? who cares? If anyone thinks that this wasn't happening before, I think their the naive ones.

I said this before, and I will say this again and again, there is nothing private, you are not anonymous, there is simply no-such-thing.

I would suspect that those concerned about wiretap laws and so-called invasion of privacy are truly paranoid, or just plain trying to hide something.

I am not suggesting that the government get carte blanche access to everything, there does need to be some oversight. I know, I know, the oversight commitee will be corrupt, right? (I think that they make pills to ease paranoia).

so, Someone, please draw me a picture, how is this so bad, what the hell is so private, they are not putting cameras in our houses...wait, are they?

Re:Help me understand, please!

[Anonymous Coward]

>they are not putting cameras in our houses...wait, are they?

Not yours, don't worry. You aren't, let's see, both of Chinese/MiddleEastern/Jewish/FlavorOfTheWeek ancestry and working in the high tech industry. So no worries, mate.

But pre-9/11, if they had wanted to put their own cameras and microphones in your house, they would have needed a court order, signed by a judge, who would actually (all counter-claims aside) review the evidence supporting the request.

Now, post-9/11, they don't need a court order at all.

Now you ask, how is this bad, what is so private? Gosh. How do I explain to you. It's like explaining water to a fish. But in this case, maybe an IQ challenged fish.

I'll tell you what. I'll do a study whereby you can sign up to have devices hidden in your house. These devices may or may not be active microphones and cameras, and they will be well hidden from you. If you participate, the devices may or may not be installed. If you look for them, you will be mocked on the internet.

The audio and images collected by the devices may or may not be, at some point in the future, released and or leaked onto the internet. You and other adults in your household, by participating in this study, take responsibility for the fact that any minors under your guardianship may have embarassing childhood episodes revealed on the internet in the future. Of course, they may or may not care, but you can decide for them since you are their guardian.

I will hire qualified personnel meeting stringent background requirements (physically strong, young, graduated high school) to protect any information collected, and let them work in offices with minimum wage clerical staff who are given large binders containing writeups that mention protecting the information. We will protect your information from release unless there is a mistake or unless we decide, or any future custodian of the information, or anyone who steals the information, decides, at any time, for any reason, to release it.

If you are interested in participating in such a study, just reply here with your active email addresses, phone numbers, your home address, your mother's maiden name, the maiden name of your spouse and your spouse's mother, the names of your closest neighbors, the names of five friends, your complete school transcripts, a transcript of a recent intimate pillow talk conversation with your spouse, and the names, addresses, and social security numbers of your family members and any relatives through previous marriages. For any private information of others that you do not have, just provide what you do know and we will find the rest.

I know, it's still hard for you to understand. Re-read the part about them no longer needing a court order. Now think about it, 'them' could be local police, sheriffs, almost anyone.

You know what? I actually don't believe you. I think you do understand.

Want to prove me wrong? OK, then just post your information, go ahead.

Re:Help me understand, please!

[HeghmoH]

Government tyrrany has killed far, far more people than criminals or terrorists ever have. Tens of millions of people in Germany, the USSR, China, and many other places. Tell me, then, why exactly should I be more worried about terrorism and crime than about overpowerful government?

Can we say Police State?

[morleron]

I think that it's becoming more clear every day that the U.S. is headed in the direction of becoming a police state. The threat of "terrorism" is being used by the governemnt to expand its police powers in the name of "defending liberty." This is as good an example of double-speak as I can think of. Every step the government has taken since 9/11 has seen a reduction in the liberty of Americans to have privacy, be free from unwarranted intrusions and searches, etc.

Unfortunately, I do not think that John Kerry, if elected, will stop this trend. He has not made protection of civil liberties, except for abortion, a major issue in his campaign. He voted for PATRIOT and, AFAIK, has made no calls for it to be repealed, re-examined, sunsetted, etc. He has given me no reason to vote for him.

On the other hand, the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik http://www.badnarik.org/index.php is calling for a halt to the expansion of the government's police powers. I intend to vote for him as I don't accept that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. I urge anyone concerned about the growth and misuse of governemnt power to consider a vote for Badnarik.

Just my $.02,
Ron

This makes no sense

[MobyDisk]

...the FCC could, if it wanted to, place tariffs on online newspapers or require that online retailers be able to process 911 emergency calls. "It's sort of a lighthearted footnote," she says. "But for me it suggests the FCC has power over all online services and it's just going to decide what services it's going to act on.

1) You cannot place a tariff on a newspaper. That would be one of the most obvious violations of the first ammendment I've ever seen. "Oh, you can criticize the government, but there is a tariff on that." riiiiggghhht....

2) Online retailers process 911 calls? Huh?

From: reader@slashdot.org
To: sales@niftystore.com
Subject: Help!

Someone is in my house, they are coming upstairs! Help!

3) The last one is the scariest part. The US government has basically found a way to get around the constitution. They don't have the power to do something, but they can set up an agency that claims the power. But this agency can bite them back by doing things the congress doesn't want.

Does the charter for the FCC state what it can and cannot do? The FCC is the greatest example of a regulatory agency that expands it's own powers based on it's own decisions. I begin to think that the entire purpose of the FCC should begin to be questioned, and maybe the charter that established it should be rewritten.