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."
The ACLU also has a site set up for reading more about what's involved and for faxing your petition - ACLU
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.
Yes, but Echelon only provides as much intelligence (on US citizens in the USA) as Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand [1] can gather electronically. This will allow the (US) Three Letter Agencies to gather much more intel, much more freely.
[1] Echelon is the UKUSA nations - USA, and the 4 listed above. It's a neat way to for the five nations to avoid spying on their own citizens - by getting their allies to do it.
This is where the serious fun begins.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Remember, fear of hostile forces is nothing new. If we "win" this "War on Terror" at the sacrifice our liberty, what have we preserved?
How are you +5 again? Perhaps the moderators should google a little first. seeing how pgpFONE is not much of an option: MIT is no longer distributing PGPfone. Given that the software has not been maintained since 1997, we doubt it would run on most modern systems.
The FBI already has broad authority to monitor telephone and Internet communications. Current law already provides, for example, that wiretaps can be obtained for the crimes involved in terrorist attacks, including destruction of aircraft and aircraft piracy. Most of the changes to wiretapping authority contemplated in the USA PATRIOT Act would apply not just to surveillance of people suspected of terrorist activity, but to investigation of other crimes as well. The FBI also has authority to intercept communications without probable cause of crime for "intelligence purposes under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"). The standards for obtaining a FISA wiretap are lower than those for obtaining a criminal wiretap.
Minimal and Inadequate Standards for Access To Internet Communications Section 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act substantially changes current law. Under current law, a law enforcement agent can get a pen register or trap and trace order requiring a telephone company to reveal the "numbers dialed" to and from a particular telephone. To obtain the order, the law enforcement agent must simply certify that the information to be obtained is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." This a very low level of proof, far less than the probable cause standard (probable cause that a crime has occurred, is occurring or will occur.) - a standard that must be met now to authorize access to the contents of a communication. Under the proposed Section 216, the judge must grant the order upon receiving the certification. Even if the judge disagrees, and believes that law enforcement officers are on a fishing expedition that will yield up no relevant information, the judge must issue the order. The judge is therefore not positioned to protect the privacy of a person's telephone communications; he wields a rubber stamp.
Section 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act would extend this low threshold of proof to Internet communications that are far more revealing than the numbers dialed to or from a telephone, and to portions of e-mail communications that cannot readily be separated from content. Section 216 gives law enforcement agents who obtain pen register and trap and trace orders access to "dialing, routing and signaling information." The bill does not define those terms. They would apparently apply to law enforcement efforts to determine what websites a person has visited. This is like giving law enforcement the power -- based only on its own certification -- to require the librarian to report on the books you had perused while visiting the public library. This is extending a low standard of proof -- far less than probable cause -- to "content" information even while Section 216 purports to exclude content.
The contents of a telephone call are readily separated from the telephone numbers dialed to and from a telephone. However, the same cannot be said of an e-mail address and the contents of an e-mail message. This information moves together in packets. To execute the pen register and trap and trace orders authorized by Section 216, somebody must separate the e-mail address from the contents of the e-mail message of the target. The FBI's answer to this problem is troubling. It obtains access to the entire message. Then, it asser
I boycott signatures
You're joking, right?
1) Freedom of Speech has been drastically weakened. Anybody speaking out against the president's foreign policy is deemed unpatriotic.
2) Protection from Illegal Search and Seizure. Goodbye to any sort of due process for terrorist suspects. There are STILL people in jail suspected of being terrorists, held without any real proof or more importantly a court date.
3) Right to a fair trial? Not sure what this falls under, but naming American citizens enemy combatants and denying them all legal rights has surely got to be a violation of more than just common sense.
And why did you need three? If only two or one were violated would you feel more secure?