Slashdot Mirror
FCC Asks For Comments On Internet Wiretapping
SECURITY GURU writes "Security Focus has posted a story about The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) launching a public comment period on its plan to compel Internet broadband and VoIP providers to open their networks up to easy surveillance by law enforcement agencies. The 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), a federal law that mandates surveillance backdoors in U.S. telephone networks, is what would allow the FBI to start listening in on Internet communications. The EFF, ACLU, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center all opposed the plan, and an ACLU letter-drive generated hundreds of mailings from citizens against what the group called 'the New Ashcroft Internet Snooping Request.' If you have a comment on why you don't want the governemnt reading your email please post it here. All comments are due by November 8th."
Interestingly enough, the EFF *wants* the government/music industry to tap how we use the internet when it comes to thier file sharing solution.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
If you ever thought your unencrypted traffic was safe from snooping over the Internet, you get what you deserve. If you don't like the idea of a company divulging your secrets, don't use that company, or add another layer of encryption on top of it. PGPPhone over VoIP anyone?
...with that tired argument, "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."
That is hardly the point.
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
oh, nevermind
When privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy. They can have my secret key when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Hey, if Ashcroft wants to read all my spam before I can purge it, can I get an ammendment to the act to allow them to delete it for me?
Why the hell are they asking people for arguments against it? It's obvious it's unnecessary. We have processes in place to allow for wiretaps. The processes might not be easy and that's a GOOD THING.
Get your fucking warrant, set up your equipment, and do your thing. If that takes too long and you miss your chance to get what you need, tough fucking shit. I have no sympathy for you.
Just because we were attacked (and have threats of more) recently does NOT mean that we should treat every god damn citizen like a criminal. Why can we not learn from the past? McCarthyism/Cold War??? Come on, wake up, do NOT stand for this bullshit.
We are citizens and we have rights as such. Why the hell are we allowing the government to walk all over us? Make your complaints known to the FTC and in the polls in November.
Oh yeah, the constitution is kaput!
...that those jack-booted motherfuckers always want the back door? The government fucks me there every year on April 15th - they can just take a look then, since they are already neck deep. "Like a cup o' joe while you're probing my colon, Agent Johnson?"
Internet wiretaps don't make the world safer they do the opposite - they make the world less safe. Any serious criminal will encrypt their connection meaning that the only people a wiretap would be useful against are idiots.
Wiretaps have been abused and these will also be abused - I'm not happy about giving police that power that the return is likely to be so small.
Simon
it's inevitable that govcorp would like to start meddling in VoIP, 802.11, and so on.
p2p telecom anyone?
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
The ACLU also has a site set up for reading more about what's involved and for faxing your petition - ACLU
Just because they CAN tap into you communications doesn't mean the WILL. Law enforcement is still required to get a court order to tap into your communications. That means they have to have probable cause. Whichmeans there is a good chance you are doing something you shouldn't be. I don't see the problem here. Do we NOT wnat to havbe the bad guys taken down? Or should we all just get out the tinfoil hats because "This means the those wascally wepublicans will eavesdrop on my porn line calls! Oh No3s!!"
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Previously, we could only say something like, "Someone may tap into your communication channel" to steal credit card information, listen to your VoIP, etc.. Better start using encryption! Lots of people ignore vague warnings like that. This would give us an actual "enemy of privacy" to point at.
But aren't "they" doing it already with ECHELEON?
We're already implementing https and ssl irc over our network... not that they'll see even that far, they'll likely never see past the exterior VPN tunnels.
If you have a comment on why you don't want the governemnt reading your email please post it here.
Don't you mean, "if you want the government to flag your IP address as a potential "iCriminal" post your comment there..along with your home address so we'll know where to send the net cops when it's time to serve warrants"?
Then again, it's not like Ashcroft will make decisions based on the peoples' opinions anyway. I am willing to bet that this is just an attempt at gaining the public's confidence by providing an open forum (regardless of how useless it will be) for gripes and concerns.
For all of those thinking that this is a step in the direction of government regulation of the internet... Wake up. There is no way possible to regualte, of even monitor all internet-based communication. Anyone here who has heard of ECHELON and CARNIVORE knows how unreliable and backlogged those two systems are. One created to monitor VoIP would be similarly handicapped.
"What I cary in this box is your utter subjugation."
Ah, but 1d 4e 52 84 75 83 87 cc 12 8c b3 d0
And it's a pain, too. (Someone mention DMCA vs Rot13, quick - maybe we can sue the people who make wiretap equipment)
The whole point of VOIP, is that it becomes so easy to set up your own private voip exchange. You dont need to use your ISP for anything other than carrying encrypted TCP/IP.
So all you really need is a VoIP system like Asterix and Pingtel, plus some standard VPN software at the sites where you need to use it.
So with off-the-shelf and open-source software you can create a network that is both isolated from and most likely incompatible with federal wiretaps.
Why should the government require private corporations to pay to give the government easier access to their networks. That's what this is, an unfunded mandate. The government doesn't care how technically difficult this is, or how much it would cost to implement.
All you need is a point anywhere along the network to receive all of the packets on that network.
If its not your IP address, you're supposed to ignore 'em. They want to bug the phones, they don't ignore 'em. Its called sniffing.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Send Comment Files to FCC (Attachments)
BAD idea. I wonder how much ASCII Donkey pr0n they're going to get.
Can't they simply ask the NSA to fork their incoming data streams?
Those who think that they're not getting tapped already by default are a little behind the times...
Keep in mind that the reason why wiretapping has ++utility for telephones is that tons of legislation prohibit the use of encryption on phones. It is not a technical issue at all; phones are not inherently unencryptable. It is a law, and the right to crypto. online is still on the line.
Still, I agree that (for now) it's a lot harder to lock down computing devices...
what happens to the rights of the other party in the conversation if the conversation happens to be international?
"The culprit would confine herself to only those forms of electronic communication that can be encrypted."
Not necessarily...this would tend to hold true where the 'culprit' had knowledge of decent levels of security or any technical expertise. There are more spammers out there that know about the technologies concerned than 'terrorists', who've been getting unwarranted 'bigging up' by Hollywood.
The main problem with all of this is that people don't trust their government to take a dump without handy instructions, and are very suspicious of motive, as some revelations regarding the 'trade' uses of Echelon have shown.
Add to this the problem of quasi-governmental individuals having a go themselves, and essentially we're heading for a time of outrageous suspicion connected with every human endevour.
Scary times ahead.
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
...creating holes and backdoors in these services will lead to exploits of those holes and backdoors above and beyond our kind benevolent government. Only a fool thinks that ISPs and government are above the curve when it comes to hackers.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
If you have a comment on why you don't want the governemnt reading your email please post it here.
;-)
Or simply email your comment to a friend
- Setup several email accounts. Most are reserved for sending bogus traffic (trolling for ye olde jack-booted thugs). One or two will be reserved for actual correspondence.
- When zero-hour approaches, send messages indicating "something will happen in (some place) on (some date)" using the trolling accounts. The message is intended to draw attention and resources away from the actual target and attack methodology. These would be encoded using a method with known problems. The encoding method used should be crackable, but not easily - We can't appear to be too st00pid.
- Send all "real" correspondence via high security encryption. To make it more interesting, I would pre-arrange with my cohorts that only messages sent at certain times of day, even using the "real" accounts, would be considered valid. All other messages would be "bait".
I'm sure I'm not the first to come up with something like this. I'm pretty sure the Allies sent many bogus messages prior to the Normandy invasion.The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
What are they saying here what are you ideas on this take of the FCC stnad ? Broadband providers and Internet phone services must comply with wiretapping requirements designed for the traditional phone network, the Federal Communications Commission said in a preliminary decision Wednesday. Rad More http://news.com.com/Feds+back+Internet+wiretapping +rules/2100-7352_3-5296417.html
If Ashcroft's ideas materialize, which is unfortunately likely, we will be able to know what "dirty and unaccaptable" sites was Democratic candidate visiting since he was 5 years old. Actually, Kerry is last candidate that have at least theoretical chance to win elections, simply becouse his is too old to have all his logs stored in goverment backup.
839*929
Right, because covert government abuses were completely unheard of before 2000 and will be completely unheard of again after Kerry takes office.
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
And there is zero utility in having CALEA compliance on the Internet.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Yeah, right. The Patriot Act passed 95-0, or something like that.
And a certain Senator who's running for President voted for it. What in this whole universe makes you believe that voting Democrat in November is going to help reduce the power of the government?
The loonies around here actually believe that echelon is tapping all internet traffic, despite the actual logistical and technical hurdles that would need to be overcome to keep such activities from the public.
And what if the compiler has a back door?
That's not just an academic question. It's happened
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3696344
any more 'surveilance' just doesn't seem very practicle to me.
--- blackironprison, where ignorance is bliss....
For those of you who don't take crap like this seriously, just look at how far we've come with disolving American's rights since pre-9/11. I don't care if they don't take me seriously, I'm at the very least chiming in with them. Here's my comments to them below.
I have been involved with Internet architecture and security for more than ten years. I must warn you that what you're about to do will be devastating to privacy on the Internet and will ultimately lead to such a strong distrust of the Internet that it may render it useless for any type of corporate or personal communication. There are three very serious issued here that must be discussed.
First, the effects of putting a full-blown monitoring system in place, aside from its immense cost to the taxpayers, will ultimately lead to only one conclusion: a wide open hole for any Internet hacker to direct their exploits at with the reward of full access to anyone's information on the Internet. Security of such a tool would be futile, and trusting a government agency with the security and management of such a tool dangerous in light of the government's inability to secure their own systems. Privacy concerns, corporate espionage, and even snooping on other government agencies are all serious concerns that would undermine America's use of the Internet.
Second, Abuse by those in control. Supreme court justices and high officials are not those many are concerned about with regards to abuse - these individuals are not the individuals who are commissioned to secure and manage such a system. It is underpaid government systems administration staff who would be responsible for managing it, people who are very likely to abuse their power to snoop on the private correspondence of others. Keep in mind we're not necessarily just talking about email, but personal media (pictures for example), online banking communications, and even possibly streaming video which should remain confidential from prying eyes.
Third, Electronic correspondence is all too easily analyzed and mined. Clandestine government operations to collect and store data about an individual over a period of years could easily compromise the integrity of the Internet as a whole and lead to the unjust profiling and intervention of law enforcement agencies who seek to use the information for purposes other than wiretapping.
I sincerely hope you are giving this the most critical analysis possible. The 1994 CALEA law was not passed for Internet surveillance; it was passed for telephone wiretapping. In 1994, the Internet wasn't a legislative concern, therefore to allow the FBI to apply this act to the Internet's backbone is a terrible travesty of justice. Do not allow the FBI to become the legislative branch! Demand that a law be passed specifically for Internet wiretapping before you consider anything. If a system like this were to be put in place, I for one would strongly consider abandoning the Internet and I suspect millions of others would do the same.
We are not ready yet. Our post-singularity forms, once we find out how to host sentience as the thalamus in the brain does, will need no government. Self sufficient, we can travel the universe in small groups or perhaps alone.
For now, balance seems wise. A brain researcher can work better in a safer world, and if some snooping helps with that, then it's a balance.
-I am an elective eunuch.
If this passes and becomes mandatory, you know who gets the shaft in the end? The people. VoIP companies will blatently use this to pass the buck and probably even moreso than what it will cost to implement the back door all in the name of the dollar. The people get screwed on rates as it is in many cases, here's another to pill to swallow!
Like a rock sculptor at work, so is the Federal government: chipping away slowly but surely, until the people only have the right to eat, work, and sleep. Each right which is removed, ammended, vetoed, filibustered, etc, is another one we lose. All the while, we party all night, work hard all day, and spend our lives paying the taxes which make it possible for someone else to tell us what we can do, when we can do it, and who we can do it with. And we have the media to thank for a lot of it. They keep the American Consciousness skewed with political scandals, racial issues, and anything else they can throw into young minds that feed on it like rats on cocaine. Remove the media's ability to lie and distort the truth, and things MAY start looking up. Remove politicans from being able to serve special interests, and things MAY start looking a lot better. And if we ever figure out that elected officials are usually not the BEST official, just the one with the most money and best connections, we may be able to change things.
ardustry
And this is good why?
Let's look at the FLA Supreme Court in the 2000 election. They obviously - along with a lot of other folks - thought that Al Gore deserved his recounts. The existing laws of the land were an obstacle to be overcome in order to wind up with the outcome they thought was right.
Anyone who doesn't see the ultimate peril in that line of "reasoning" is truly scary. Such belief in getting the "correct result" despite what the law says is a huge step towards anarchy and the destabilization of society. Especially when the "right" decision is so obviously politically based.
It's not a very large logical step from "we don't like the pre-existing laws that prevent the election outcome we want" to "we don't like you in power so we're mounting a coup". They are both based on the rule of man over the rule of law.
The rule of man over the rule of law is what results in Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Adolf Hitler, and Joe Stalin: "We want this political result, but the law doesn't allow it. To hell with the law."
That's why the US Supreme Court voted 5-4 to end the entire Florida fiasco, 7-2 to prevent selective recounts, and 9-0 (read the whole damn decision!) to rebuke the Florida Supreme Court for being a bunch of overreaching results-oriented idiots.
Is this what is will finally convince people to use encryption for email, VoIP, etc.? Why are we not looking for a technology answer to this encroachment into our lives by government? I am not talking about a PGP/GPG package, I am talking about encryption *built-in* to Thunderbird. I am talking about encryption marketed for VoIP in a convincing fashion. What will it take to get the government out of my business?
Thats really convuluted(sp?) logic. My question really would Democrat vote in november save us ? Will Kerry have the balls to stand up against FCC ? or will "its for the children", "remember 9/11" logic sway his hand ?
these are sad time
"Why the hell are they asking people for arguments against it? It's obvious it's unnecessary. We have processes in place to allow for wiretaps. The processes might not be easy and that's a GOOD THING."
That *is* a key question, now isn't it?
The only possible reason would be to make the process a lot easier and automatic, don't you think?
Phone companies currently roll over and handle these things fairly automatically right now. No checking, and no questions. Just a salute and a "Yes sir!".
They want this for convenience of course. It's a lot easier to bypass the existing so-called checks than it is to implement the technology.
And who knows what the CIA or NSA are doing, now that they are moving back towards spying on U.S. Citizens again.
All in the name of "keeping us safe". Personally, I think Bin Laden seems to have been all too successful in destroying the America we once knew.
Welcome to the America of the 21st century. Your papers please.
there's a box at the bottom... under the big "OR" ... you can just leave a short 70 character comment if you dont want to leave all your vital info.
Cue the ill-informed Ashcroft bashing.
We all (well.. all of us who aren't conspiracy nuts) recognize that the Government has the right to tap a telephone line under limited circumstances, with probable cause, and with a court order. I don't see why the "internet" or "on-line" should be any different. As long as the right checks and procedures exist (like court orders) and are followed, then there will be no problem. Remember, any information that is gathered is subject to challenge by defence lawyers in court before it gets used as evidence against the accused. So there is actually at least two levels of checks in place - one before permission is given for the tap and the second before what is gathered becomes admissable evidence.
Question: Do the same rules that apply to tapping phones apply here?
IIRC, in order to get a tap, the law enforcment folks have to get some kind of warrant from a judge, and the have to show proabable cause as to why they want the tap. And even after they get it, and the records, the defendant can still challenge the original warrant, and have the wiretapping thrown out at trial. I think.
If the same requirements exist for tapping someone's IP connection, then what's the worry? So the ability to do the tap is there. What I'm really worried about is the standard thats applied to use the tap. I don't want some fed going to a judge and saying "at some point, he typed the word terrorist into a comment on a message board" and that being all they need to get the tap.
The same sort of standards should apply to IP and VoIP taps as exist for phone taps..unless the Patriot Act took that all away already. I think that's what the EFF & ACLU should be pushing for, rather than trying to block the ability to tap, is ensuring the same probable cause rules apply.
I, for one, welcome our new wiretapping FCC overlords.
Does anybody else think it strange that the page to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commision has the netscape favicon?
So.. the federal commision that has nominal authority over much of internet communication in the US, is asking for more power and control over said communication, and they care SO MUCH about what the citizens have to say, that their RFC page hasnt been updated in 10 months, and seems to proclaim itself as being part of netscape.com.
Thats a real confidence builder.
I think that CALEA is a bad idea, and will only make the situation worse. For one, it will create a market for strong encrypted phone calls that will be unbreakable by Law Enforcement. It will also stifle innovation by making it harder for developers of new technology to test and deploy their system.
If CALEA must go into effect, it should only apply to commercial providers of VoIP services that allow users to connect to any PSTN. So as to minimize the impact on innovation, it should only apply to large networks that can easily afford the overhead. I believe the VoIP provider should have at least one million paying customers before CALEA should apply. Furthermore, the cost should not be passed on to the consumer. After all, they didn't do anything wrong. If CALEA is used to catch a criminal, and that person is found guilty, then they should pay.
When I communicate with someone, I "give" something to that person, and only to that person. I give them my opinions and my ideas, which shows who I am and what my beliefs are. This is why the police have to notify you that you have the right to remain silent. When you speak, you give information, which can be used against you in a form you did not intend.
When someone snoops on your conversation with someone else, they are "taking" information which you did not authorize for them to have. They are seizing information from you, because you did not intend them as a recipient of what you communicated. In my opinion, the government snooping on you is the same thing as an unlawful search and seizure. They are taking information from you without your consent. Further, if it's your own speech and they are using it against you, you've basically self-incriminated yourself without even knowing it, since you didn't know that what you said was being logged by a 3rd party. This is not a lawful way of accusing someone of a crime. In a court room, information improperly gathered during discovery is thrown out, and cannot be used.
(Be aware, I'm refering to closed conversations like email or private chats- where it's clear that each person intends the other as a recipient of their communication. Anything you post on the web or in a global forum is basically giving your speech to everyone, so you don't have any right to stop that information from being logged and used against you.)
Crypto, at least in this country - is perfectly legal, and has a decent legal basis for being legal.
Something like this will provoke widespread adoption of cryptographic measures, and don't forget, the world doesn't stop at the US border. Worldwide adoption puts pressure on to support and that starts a positive feedback loop.
Yes, governments will then start to clamour for backdoors - and then we can have a much more heated debate about what we want the western world to look like in 50 years.
I suspect the truth is that nobody cares (you're not a TERRORIST, are you!), with voter turnouts the way they are - things are headed in a very unfortunate direction. It's depressing to see the same tactics, used over and over through history to change the balance of power between a citizenry and it's government.
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate, and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Ceasar."
It's a shame that this can't be attributed to "the" Ceasar, but you'd be hard pressed to find a more fitting quote to stirr debate.
Freedom is not safe. Tyranny isn't safe either. What would you rather?
..don't panic
forget privacy for a minute I am pissed at the cost of wire taps. I forget where I read it but that average wire tap costs around $50,000 most of that in labor. This seems to be yet another collosal moneysink for the government. Wire taps need to be harder toget if only because I don't like paying for them.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
I'm not a security expert, so some of the above may be wrong, but it is obvious that capturing everything on the wire is not sufficient for successful wiretapping, since the private keys required for deciphering all these information is never sent on the wire (actually they are often never written to disk either), and inferring the public key from the private key is considered practically impossible.
The interesting question here is what they'll do about homegrown/open source systems. If I write VoIP software and talk to my friends through it, will I/it be considered a provider and forced to supply this tapping service?
If no, it is so easily circumvented that it will only catch stupid and careless criminals. Note that this may well be a large portion of the target population and ebough to make this worthwhile.
If yes, it seems extremely intrusive, and since I would be my own provider in this case, also fairly useless. When they order me to implement the tap on my self, it will probably make me more careful what I talk about.
"The culprit would not be submitting articles to bulletin boards on Slashdot"
/.
No, but what about gpg encrypted comments?
The government urgently needs to monitor all those terrorists on
Attention!
Your attention please!
A newsflash has this moment arrived from the [suburban] front.
Our forces in [your house] have won a glorious victory.!
I am authorized to say that the action we are now reporting may well bring the war within measurable distance of its end.
Here is the newsflash:
times 17.3.04 gwb speech malreported africa rectify
times 19.12.03 forecasts 3 yp 4th quarter 83 misprints verify current issue
times 14.2.04 dhs malquoted code orange rectify
times 3.12.83 reporting gwb day order doubleplusungood....
(with apologies to George Orwell)
Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge
...is that it doesn't matter where you send your comments, the government will get them.
Second, the bloody thing grew out of DARPAnet right, and DARPA stands for what? And who pays DARPA's bills? I'm not drawing any conclusion here, but I won't speak for the tinfoil hat crowd.
Three, *anyone* with the right knowledge and tools can intercept/block/eavesdrop on public traffic, after all it *is* public. Given the government could accomplish this without legislation, well right back to the opening paragraph...
Four, so the bill dies still-born, so what? A warrant for a wire-tap still can be obtained. So if your data rides your phone line, you are still screwed. Cable modems and phone-free DSL might be a bit of a challenge, but I would suggest that since the government operated from the position that it owns the infrastructure of transmission for a long long time, that there probably are mechanisms which would allow for tapping these media. IANAL, but it seems likely.
PGP? Are you on glue? Do you really think PGP is going to protect your content? Please, think a little longer. Hell, most of the worlds fastest supercomputers live in installations with NL (LLNL, INEL, etc. etc.) at the end of their acronym, and one government agency seems to be a little shy about telling the world how fast their machines really are. If you really think PGP is going to defeat the resources of a nation-state, you deserve the prosecution you get. The kind and quiet folks over at NSA have been playing the cryptography game significantly longer than the internet has existed. Also they played against the varsity, other nation-states.
There are good reasons to allow virtual taps, and very few good reasons to deny them. Now, the language and form of the legislation is hugely important. We accept that law enforcement can obtain a warrant to tap your phone line. We understand the mechanism, and I didn't see many of you folks protesting that. If the law is well written it will allow law enforcement the means to get usable evidence, and still have mechanisms to protect us from abuse of the law.
There is nothing wrong with the concept, there is however significant reason to be concerned about the language and scope of the proposed legislation. So long as the proper speed bumps exist, and the required precautions taken to prevent abuse, there is no need for this law to be of any more concern to the average citizen than the wire-tapping law.
Bottom line, like the wiretapping law, this legislation seeks to define the conditions under which an indidual's rights can be suspended. Like all criminal law really, it is a central tenent of our judicial system. The government *is* allowed to abridge your rights, that is what imprisonment is. The law itself is not unusual... ...but like any other piece of criminal law, we should be very watchful of the language...
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
Due to the nature of the Internet, the ability to "tap" into communications is difficult. It places an unfair onus on service providers for very little benefit, past a "big brother" ability. This is due to the ethereal nature of Internet communications. Independent enterprise should not be a legal enforcer. We already have laws that require the disclosure of records, etc. There is no need to expand the reach of the observational capabilities. Not to mention the fact that if there are any exemptions, such as outlined in paragraph 16 of the document, then that effectively undermines any impact this bill may have. If someone wishes to hide from the observation, they simply need to do their communications through a "mom & pop" ISP that isn't beholden to the rules, easily done through dial-up internet access from virtually anywhere. I would suggest a more critical eye be turned on this document, and a focus on enforcing the laws already on the books, rather than continually posturing with new bills that do nothing but harm legitimate citizens and consumers, and place naught but a minor roadblock in the way of true criminals. ================ Feel free to use this as a BASIS for your comment, if you agree with what it says. Otherwise, the FCC will see it as simply spamming them.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Your post is already outdated, because a court declared that unconstitutional this morning.
While I think that the act, if passed, will create a huge market for encryption, I don't think that the average user will care all that much. People like us, with a thorough knowledge of such things, we are the ones that will be leading the fight. I for one will simply encrypt anything I want to be private. Just be glad that things aren't as bad as they could be.
"What I cary in this box is your utter subjugation."
If we don't have these types of measures...how do you do?
I respect a persons right to privacy but..
When all is said and done...when someone does something against the law...how is the legal system suppose to prevent illegal acts from happening or gain proof of a wrong doing in the high tech world?
Do you pick up the pieces after the crime (and hope no one was killed or all the money was taken) or do you try and prevent it?
If you pick up after the crime then it seems to me normal legal procedures(getting warrents, etc) are in place which requires the law enforcement to have oversite by the juducial side.
If you take the method of trying to prevent the crime ("pre-crime" anyone?) things get a little tricker as I see it.
You can probably stil have to have probable cause and or get a warrent to tap a given communications, but when a communication is encrypted and unable to be monitored how do you detect something that is considered suspicious...how can you get probably cause?
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
Too shy to meet? Sorry to hear that; I think you'll enjoy meeting other nerds. I have. But if you can't handle it, then at least get signed by a robot. It's better than nothing. (Really. That's actually a debatable point, but I say it is.)
We nerds can form the backbone WoT infrastructure, then non-nerd leaf-node-people can hook up to us. It's totally doable, you just have to do it.
Then the fuckers can snoop the medium all they want, but it'll do them no good. (And looking up keys for privacy is just one of the awesome things we can do with a distributed authentication system...)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
bJkqjEX1LHci3bW1ZsEBwPGgyOirIY1V+T9ATebKWRJcBO8/m9 pMSniCfQeL7DYZjr2kY 7+xRI25l4LGynKr3e6A8 c528rGzENF3x8X3ZYQp A2ceNfZ+puV3SG2iHALK cJXWalI4d8Ym9YatkRb 4kUUVBM/ATq+mJrgy+oZ 1mjJOzb81SnauGP/nlQ NMXXLFa70ZCFru8TCb2x zcyq/r/0XA2NfnCuT+U bXecTDgCDrBwaHCO8T9T XOz5NqIVmuhnF2NEXJc iD1BYenfi8q+mgMXsDOp JZiQEq+4b/nQNhEan3B +EJ1dEbxapZpN40E83Hx 07eHudEewjAASOUdEza hmud+E53qcS3vB/LS3hJ o7ycF0aCwU4zXwG6fX
HGRBEHpKrifGMG3WZ+Lbrq5KPIGxY
P6OsOpWWMge0e8vWT0D+/3rJ0mEVX
U2Ub7hbD6/0olSe90zVUVcn+AuDMQ
HOkrBOZfmgDALjLHtHGeEIoCrxWxS
P7vvWbpNJIbEno7GIi0s2MEVTad3T
tvNTfmn7PRVqcEwP5yMILyWNyuAAC
FkPQqgXP0AAo4MiO6bdib6wGF2xTK
p4hYSlYGTdZagc5d0hLozPXXdLPDI
NO FSCKING WAY!!!!!!
Voting will not solve this issue. Do you want to know why? Because 99% of the politicians in this country have no interest in solving problems, they only want to get elected and stay in power.
Politicians will never solve issues like these. Politicians listen to the richest members of their base. For the left, that means Hollywood. For the right, it means big business. Politicians legislate accordingling. Grandstanding is common. They "reward" luxurious bureaucratic appointments as favors. These bureaucrats then sit in office, maintain the status quo. They don't want things to change. They'll buck the system every chance they can. Bureaucrats sit in office and do their very best to retain their positions by making others look bad. It's a big, serious case of CYA - cover your ass. If you do that, and don't do anything else, you probalby have a nice long career ahead of you in DC.
Politics in this country (both left and right) are 100% aimed at celebrating their own beliefs and bashing that of anyone else's.
For 4 years, we've heard the left screaming about the right, and the right defending their decisions. Look at what Kerry and Bush have been saying about the war on terrorism. For months, Kerry's been pointing people to his website. Finally, Edwards has come out with some steps in their plan, and it's the same shit we've heard from either side for years. "I plan to increase funding."
The only difference is where they get the funding. The left taxes the shit out of everyone. The right borrows the money.
Frankly, neither solution is attractive to me. I think the private sector should take over national security. Write a nice contract, take into account liability, and pay them accordingly, based on performance. Try it for a couple years. It CAN'T be any worse than what we have now. The government buys $1300 toilet seats, and $750 hammers. Contracting out would be a good solution. Pay for performance. The only thing that would stand in the way would be the unions. The unions would scream bloody murder if they weren't there to put the whole thing to a screeching halt.
-- No sig for you!
"Kerry will bust you for not being nice to Muslims."
I've heard a lot of dumb and/or partisan political statements this year. A whole lot. But this has to win some kind of award.
What on earth are you talking about?
Consider for a moment, crowd, moderators, metamoderators all. Is it flamebait to look at this pathetic attempt at analogy and say "horseshit?" Or is it just being succinct?
We're supposed to seriously consider whether Senator Kerry has a forced Muslim appreciation regime? Maybe politely ask for his sources? Calmly spend time wondering what hidden diamond of wisdom is buried inside this petrified cow pellet?
Is it somehow satisfying to just wave our hands as these idea spammers overload the mental inbox with bullshit? Have to keep calm... Every idea is equal... Have to treat everyone with respect...
Can any outrage slip past us as long as it is outrageous enough?
We used to have uncomplicated, plain old non-postmodern ridicule for nonsense like this. Is it extinct?
Just curious, acvh, did you wince a little when you wrote that? Maybe even you know you're stretching it a little?
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
I urge everyone on \. to post their comments with EPIC before fishing for mod points here. If you don't sound off, you have no justifiable cause to bitch about the Fed's abuses of Internet "wiretapping". If WE (all of us) don't get proactive with this shit, we've no one but ourselves to blame when all of our rights/freedoms disappear one by one....Anyone remember "Minority Report"? Do we really want to enable the "Thoght Police"? Only my humble opinion, carry on!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
"if you have a comment on why you don't want the governemnt reading your email..." [sic]
Where does it say that?
Reading an email repository isn't the same as sniffing packets.
(Unfortunately, it's also not illegal yet.)
To be Anonymous, or not... that is the question.
http://www.sinfest.net/d/20040929.html/
Tatsuya Ishida also suggests:
"Martians invade Earth after receiving intelligence that Bush was plotting a Mission to Mars. Although they find no Weapons of Mars Destruction they insist we had the capacity to build them. Alien war profiteers reopen Alcatraz, rename it Abu Probe, proceed to 'interrogate' humans."
Thank you for reading One Man's Opinion. No participation necessary. Offer void where deemed by law or PATRIOT Act.
Sigh... damn slashcode.
Thank you for reading One Man's Opinion. No participation necessary. Offer void where deemed by law or PATRIOT Act.
One comment - DUMBASS!
Get your head out of said orifice. Your comment assumes that
1) FBI are good guys who only trouble "bad" guys
2) Judges are not corrupt, can't be bought, or simply by on the "in" track with the government
3) You assume that there will be some hypothetical trial. Given recent laws, you can be labeled a terrorist, and all the "fair trial" horseshit goes out the window.
4) The infrastructure will be in place, and will be abused, both by insiders and outsiders.
This is not "don't worry". This is "move the hell off the earth", or at least out of legislative reach of the US government.
This FCC request is two things: 1. A piece of PR bullshit which only affects a meaningless department within a meaningless department, and which is primarily designed to shape public consciousness and herd populations. And 2. to clarify the list of trouble makers for later liquidation.
In short, the powers that matter are not going to ask your permission before eavesdropping.
-FL
so, you collect the data and either
a) subpoena or
b) "black-bag"
the related encryption keys, passphrases, what-have-you.
Securing the middle is pointless unless you've secured the ends as well.
Dump the IRS - http://www.fairtax.org
The opportunities for misusing a wiretapped internet connection are orders of magnitude greater than those offered by traditional phone taps. An internet wiretap is therefore a more grave intrustion than a simple phone tap, and should have commensurately stronger restrictions.
"...The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." That is, until fags want to get married. THEN the conservatives LOVE to have the government intervene...
Intelligent Design: because MATH is HARD.
Suppose the technology itself comes under attack. Remember Skipjack? If something like that was successful, there's more than privacy at stake, there's security itself. Crypto is used to authenticate people to their own machines -- which means the government could not only read my email, but break into my computer. This means I now have to "trust" (in the sysadmin sense) every single person at the NSA.
Also, if someone were to use encryption involving an exchange of public keys, couldn't they use a spoken code anyway? Or even stenography over the VOIP conversation.
I think anyone who doesn't encrypt deserves to be wiretapped. I also think that anyone who doesn't want to be overheard should be able to have their privacy.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I just want to suggest something to think about.
RICO, wiretapping laws, and conspiracy liability, basically led to the downfall of organized crime to a large extent in the U.S.
The government was given very broad powers, and people in criminal law generally seem to agree that this is what it took, and why the syndicates were finally taken down.
Sure, it's nice to have the right to collude secretly and organize secretly just for your jollies, or to fight an oppressive government, but practically speaking, I'm not sure we can live without some limitations on that, because the same freedom allows organized crime to take hold and potentially insulate the organization from any prosecution...
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
6 u0 QbmrwhclO0lcNm
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) - WinPT 0.9.12
jA0EAwMClb0qK3A7uHRgySgmQRDW+qjKLLlLNNIgNDWeS1f
a0wn5X8q5VHO
=wMCU
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
This all reminds me of the debates that spring up when people want to criminalize firearms. As the cliche goes, "If guns are criminalized then only criminals will have guns". One may easily say the same about robust encryption. If you have communications that are valuable, you will take the steps necessary to secure them from all eavesdropping, including the government's. Nowadays, this is easily accomplished through creative use of one-pad ciphers, which, in theory, are still largely unbreakable. (was that an iceberg we just hit?) Anyway, the point is if you have communications so valuable that you do not want the government listening, then you probably also have the resources to use what the government would deem illegal encryption (no back door) and also have the resources to make any legal problems that may arise just go away. This is a really old theme that is not going to change any time soon. The one with all of the gold makes the rules.
First, if the feds really want to see what you are doing, the Patriot Act probably makes it really easy for them to do without telling anyone. Next, even if the current government had the fastest computers on Earth (say 10,000,000,000 teraflops; not a likely nubber; you get the idea) and they could simply bruteforce anything ever encrypted, they would still have one hell of a time trying to keep up with sheer volume. Look at the info flying around and ask yourself, "Is it really possible to save all the information that flies around the net at a given moment to HDs long enough to search it all for keywords and still keep up with the constant stream of other information coming in?" With today's technology, hell no! Plus, if they got their ability to wiretap TCP/IP lines, everyone would stick things under SSL. Encryption would be built in to everything. Your web browser inserts "http://" for you. New browsers would just insert "https". By default your FTP clent probably uses ftp. New ones would default to ftps. New VOIP software will be SSLd. With any system the feds could ever have today, the time required to decrypt info would make the ability to gather all of it useless. Nobody can tell encrypted letters to grandma from encrypted messages between terrorists. Go try listening on an SSL conversation. For those of you who might say, "The feds could just negotiate one SSL session with the server and another with you, then read it in plaintext!" The answer to this is, "What if the information over the SSL session was encrypted in it's plaintext type state." PGP anyone?