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."

21 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. But the EFF *wants* to tap when it come to p2p by turnstyle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  2. Please don't start... by The+Queen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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
    1. Re:Please don't start... by Theseus192 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My reply to "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." is this:

      If the government isn't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. With footnotes to Filegate, Yasser Hamdi, and Brandon Mayfield to name three off the top of my head.

      --
      If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out? - Will Rogers
  3. WE ARE CITIZENS! by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:WE ARE CITIZENS! by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, there are too many citizens willing to trade liberty for safety. They WANT the government to be able to look at the bad guy's traffic, and that's how the government bills this. They only time that they care is when it personally inconveniences them. That's not going to happen to the average Joe until everyone is using VoIP and the law enforcement officer starts snooping on THEM. It is not until they personally feel violated that they care. Otherwise, they're playing the, "must get the terrorist" game.

    2. Re:WE ARE CITIZENS! by Zwack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hmmm... List three "liberties" that have been given up in the war on terror... that's a really hard one... I assume that you mean "rights" not "liberties".

      Well, given that the USA PATRIOT act allows sneak and peek searches, I would say that the liberty to feel safe from searches in your own home... (That would be your rights under the Fourth Amendment)

      Then there is the Sixth amendment rights to a fair, speedy public trial. Given that people held since 9/11 have been held without trial as "material witnesses", that the patriot act allows people to be held without access to legal defence... I think that might be number two. (I would point out that the sixth amendment does not say "Citizen".)

      So, I only need to find another loss of a right within the bill of rights and I think I can claim that I am home free... Well, I'm going to do this the other way round for the last one... I'll pick an amendment and find ways that it has been broken (in my opinion)... I think the first amendment is a good one...

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      Hmmm, well, technically, Congress hasn't made many laws on this. However, the rights enumerated under this have definitely been violated.

      We'll start with the "free speech" zones. So that the president doesn't have to see any opposition, people who want to "Peaceably asemble" are herded into little cages around the corner out of sight.

      The military have "banned" certain types of photographs from being shown to the public... that sounds to me like the freedom of the press being violated.

      After the Madrid bombing an Oregonian lawyer was accused (and later released) based on a poor match to a smudged partial print. His name was bandied about, his reputation dragged through the mud... and all because he was a Muslim lawyer. That sounds like an impediment to his free practice of religion.

      Voter registrations in Ohio are being ignored because they are printed on the wrong paper, and voters in Florida are being unregistered because they have a similar name to someone who committed a felony in a different state. Both of those sound like they are an impediment to their right to petition government for a redress of greivances. If you can't vote against someone that you disagree with then your requests to them have less power.

      Will that satisfy you?

      or do I have to list more?

      Z.

      --
      -- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
  4. What happened to no unreasonable searches? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh yeah, the constitution is kaput!

    1. Re:What happened to no unreasonable searches? by justkarl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're supposed to forego all of your constitutional rights to fight terrorism.

      Whether you're making a clever joke, or telling it the way it is, you're right on the money.
      Like it or not, since 9/11 we've seen some pretty wack stuff. Random searches? Patriot Act? Holding without just cause? What the hell is that? More and more, the Constitution has become something that only the rich can afford. In the meantime, those who are a day in the sun darker than those in power suffer because what was once regarded as "rights" are being thrown in the toilet. In the name of what? Some crusty white zealot's blood war.

  5. Great idea, honest! by Ckwop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  6. This may help encryption adoption by Lord+Grey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
  7. Pardon my Tinfoil... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But aren't "they" doing it already with ECHELEON?

  8. Go go gadget Tinfoil Hat! by Jakhel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:No reason for alarm by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Why should... by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:No reason for alarm by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  12. Re:No reason for alarm by Sheepdot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

  13. How about... by LilMikey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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
  14. Well I'm Writing in by Nuclear+Elephant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. Im Concerned About Cost by Thrymm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

  16. Re:Still need a Court Order by PeterHammer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Law enforcement is still required to get a court order to tap into your communications.

    They are also supposed to have arrest warrants and follow do process to hold people. Especially if they are arrested inside the country. I think a few Muslims in our generation, and Japanese in our grandparents generation, may have something to say about that.

  17. Wow, that's some comparison you made there by Featureless · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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?