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
...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
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!
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
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?
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.
It's a slippery slope you see. Soon the assholes will want backdoors to encryption programs or they will ban them outright. Obviously only a terrorist wouldn't want the government to see their traffic.
This isn't tin foil hat material folks... This is really what's going to happen if we continue down the road we have been traveling. If we don't stop it at the polls this year it's not going to be easily turned around.
Governments (regardless of party affiliation) love to have power. If one party can get the public brainwashed into believing that the measures they are taking are both necessary and acceptable the other side isn't going to complain when they have just that much more control over the population...
VOTE IN NOVEMBER AND PUT AN END TO THIS HORSESHIT.
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.
You're absolutely right, and anyone who thinks their email is a purely private communication is either ignorant and/or an idiot.
That said, there is a huge difference between your ISP being able to read your email if they want to and having them compeled to provide that capability to a government agent.
KFG
Hmm... Let's see here. Name, Address, Email, and Phone. Yeah okay, filled out. After all, when the German government required registration for gun owners in 1938, they didn't immediately turn around and seek those people out when they banned guns. Err wait.
I would highly advise you to *not* fill out this form with any legitimate info (which is probably required for the comment to be considered). In fact, I would falsly fill it out with the personal information of your state auditor, governor, or other public figure.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it should bother *anyone* that they request all this ridiculous information for simply leaving a comment.
(Note: 1928 was the first gun registration, but it was "improved" in 1938 to include mandatory registration for any type of weapon)
It is a major distinction, agreed, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a public network, and if they can't compel your ISP to hand over your email, they can just as easily intercept it BEFORE it gets to your ISP. Also, aren't most ISPs happy enough to hand over your email if they get a court order? It's always been an illusion of privacy, and if people think that a public network gives them any privacy, they are sorely mistaken.
this is going slightly off topic, but what makes you think that electing Kerry will put a stop to this? his faction is just as interested in what you're discussing with your friends as Bush's. only difference is that Ashcroft will bust you for being nice to Muslims, while Kerry will bust you for NOT being nice to Muslims.
...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
. . .and if they can't compel your ISP to hand over your email, they can just as easily intercept it BEFORE it gets to your ISP.
Exactly.Your own rebuttal is my rebuttal to your rebuttal. Problem solved without the application of an offensive law that broadens the rights of the government to spy on its citizens.
KFG
I'm not for the law, by the way. I'm just saying that if you think this gives them any new powers, you're wrong.
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
I'm confused, do you honestly believe that Kerry would actually oppose the ability of law enforcement agencies to quickly and easily tap the internet communications of those suspected of crimes?
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.
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!
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.
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.)
"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!
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