Slashdot Mirror
Pay To Have Your Phone Tapped
An anonymous reader writes "The Globe and Mail is running an interesting story over who should carry the cost of wiretapping (registration may be required): 'Canada's police chiefs propose a surcharge of about 25 cents on monthly telephone and Internet bills to cover the cost of tapping into the communications of terrorists and other criminals.'"
Thank you Pringles can + 802.11g + VoIP + IPSec.
Wiretap? Have fun.
Tax? Try me.
My other car is first.
People are looking at Voice over IP as a solution to all this idiocy, but really, not because of its technological advantages at all. They're looking at it because telephone communication is too mainstream and has been saddled with all these extra charges, surveillance, telemarketing, et cetera, none of which is optional to pay for. If VOIP was mainstream, it would have exactly the same crap tacked onto it.
I don't see why i should have to buy anything but what I want to buy... which is commmunication with family, friends, government, and businesses. Telcom's should not be forced to offer 'services' like this at all, they should only be motivated to offer services that benefit and attract customers.
If the country thinks they should be using wire taps that is totally separate, and the budget certainly does exist.
If it's not funded enough, fine; we the voters will think about giving you more money.
The common response to this is that it's way too expensive to take this route, because building all of the wiretapping infrastructure will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. We'd have to double the law enforcement budgets if they had to pay to build this infrastructure themselves.
However, that just raises the question of whether or not wiretapping infrastructure is a good way to spend our law enforcement dollars. All privacy, etc., issues aside, wouldn't we be better off taking the same amount of money and using it to hire more/better cops?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Your powerful message shook the cynicism from my eyes. (cue patriotic music...)
No longer will I assume that lobbiests funnel money to our representatives to buy influence. I now realize that they simply want to be friendly.
No longer shall I think negative thoughts when Dick C. invites energy companies into private meetings to write energy bills. They were probably just playing Risk or Dungeons & Dragons.
No longer will I assume that George was skipping National Guard duty in Texas rather than slogging through the jungles of Vietnam because of his family connections. It was probably just the luck of the draw.
I will recognize that the DMCA was for the benefit of all citizens of our great country and not a cynical manuever to extend Mickey Mouse's value. I feel better knowing that my copyrights are now protected for decades after I die.
I will rejoice that the grassroots efforts of the voters of California managed to unseat a lawfully elected govenor without the influence of outside money. Jeb next, anyone?
From now on the great words of the commie freak Arlo will echo in my ears: "This Land is YOUR Land; This Land if MY Land!" Assuming, of course, that this is considered "fair use" under the current law.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
How much do you think it costs to wiretap in the first place? Do you think they have wiretapping machines with a coin slot and "please insert 25 cents to hear the next two minutes"? No, they have a person (who is probably salaried and would be paid the same amount to NOT wiretap) sitting in a room (which they MIGHT have to rent from the phone company, though in these Digital Days, they probably just route the packets by some closet in the police station) recording the conversation on tape (which probably costs $5 a minute, knowing how governments like to buy from the closest-related bidder).
So, for the roughly 30million people in Canada, this raises CDN$7.5million/month. If my estimate of $5/minute of tape is close, then thats 1.5million minutes of listening in on your phonesex calls.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
If this surcharge is put in place then obviously the price will need to be adjusted occasionally. By exaggerating the need for wiretaps the police chiefs can increase their budgets and their headcount without even raising taxes because the citizen only sees an increase in his phone and internet bills.
Don't think it could happen? More than once, a friend of mine who compiles crime statistics was pressured by his female boss to massage the numbers for domestic violence cases because that is her pet peeve. She couldn't flat out say to change the numbers but it was clear what she wanted, especially after several years of this. He ended up reclassifying certain types of cases that had never been counted under DV before. Presumably she wanted to show an increased need for funding either for her own satisfaction or as a political favor to the director of that program.
I guarantee you that if someone can bump up their headcount or budget by doing more wiretaps then more and more wiretaps will get performed regardless of the true need. Peace. Big Brother loves you.