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
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!
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
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."
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.
Send Comment Files to FCC (Attachments)
BAD idea. I wonder how much ASCII Donkey pr0n they're going to get.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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
hmm, you mean like putting people in jail without representation, without charges, without notification (i.e. even admitting that they were even jailed), for an indeterminant amount of time. That would cover the laws included in at least the 4,5 and 6th amendments or maybe you mean that congress has the power to 'declare war', so we must not actually be at war
I don't know (or remember) enough of the details to agree or disagree with you on this. Although I'd go along with both your argument and with the reverse. Anytime a voting outcome is within the error of margin of the voting method, the outcome is going to be decided by a political decision. In this case, I'm shocked, shocked that gambling is..., I mean that the court where 7/7 judges were nominated by Democrats supported the Demorcatic Party candidate and the court where 7/9 judges were nominated by Republicans supported the Republican party candidate.
While it may be a bad sign for the independence of the judicial branch, it's hardly suprising.
(of course, having the whole state re-vote and hoping the outcome wasn't in the margin of error may have been a good choice, at least to try it once. I don't know the Florida voting laws well enough (ok, at all