Slashdot Mirror
FCC To Require Backdoor Network Access for Feds
humankind writes "The EFF is reporting that the Federal Communications Commission issued a release [pdf] announcing its new rule expanding the reach of the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)." From the article: "Practically, what this means is that the government will be asking broadband providers - as well as companies that manufacture devices used for broadband communications - to build insecure backdoors into their networks, imperiling the privacy and security of citizens on the Internet. It also hobbles technical innovation by forcing companies involved in broadband to redesign their products to meet government requirements."
NEWS
Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20554
News Media Information 2021418-0500
Internet: http://www.fcc.gov/
TTY: 1-888-835-5322
this Is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action.
See MCI Y. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Clrc 1974).
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 5, 2005
NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Mark Wigfield, 202-418-0253 Email; mark.wigfield@fcc.gov
FCC Requires Certain Broadband and VoIP Providers to Accommodate Wiretaps
Order Strikes Balance Between Law Enforcement, Innovation
Washington, D.C. - Responding to a petition from the Department of Justice, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Commission determined that
providers of certain broadband and interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services
must be prepared to accommodate law enforcement wiretaps, the Federal Communications
Commission ruled today.
The Commission found that these services can essentially replace conventional
telecommunications services currently subject to wiretap rules, including circuit-switched voice
service and dial-up Internet access. As replacements, the new services are covered by the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA, which requires the
Commission to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct court-ordered
wiretaps in the face of technological change.
The Order is limited to facilities-based broadband Internet access service providers and
VoIP providers that offer services permitting users to receive calls from, and place calls to, the
public switched telephone network. These VoIP providers are called interconnected VoIP
providers.
The Commission found that the definition of "telecommunications carrier" in CALEA is
broader than the definition of that term in the Communications Act and can encompass providers
of services that are not classified as telecommunications services under the Communications Act.
CALEA contains a provision that authorizes the Commission to deem an entity a
telecommunications carrier if the Commission "finds that such service is a replacement for a
substantial portion of the local telephone exchange."
Because broadband Internet and interconnected VoIP providers need a reasonable amount
of time to come into compliance with all relevant CALEA requirements, the Commission
established a deadline of 18 months from the effective date of this Order, by which time newly
covered entities and providers of newly covered services must be in full compliance. The
Commission also adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will seek more
information about whether certain classes
It seems the ruling only applies to interconnected VOIP carriers and Internet providers which offer voice services. It doesn't seem to apply to Internet providers which only provide IP connectivity.
One way around this with Asterisk is to terminate all your calls with a random (say 10-20) different out-of country VOIP providers. It would be harder for them to track the call as it is routed back into the states.
When they require CALEA access IP=IP connections then that's where it will get interesting.
Till then, I'll just make IP-IP connections to my friends with Asterisk. I can always turn on IAX encryption if I feel paranoid.
"What if it means that the equipment will accept connections if it passes a rigerous sshv2-dsa key handshake, with a really, really big key size? I don't see that being insecure, setting aside concerns about the stupid feds being bitches in power games leaking the key. Technically, there's nothing stopping them from making it secure (as secure as you or I have our home systems, that is)."
The dominant SSH implementation (OpenSSH) isn't even based in the US, so the FCC doesn't have the power to mandate backdoors in it.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Big deal. So anyone with a little bit of knowledge and desire can cripple the entire internet in one blow.
We can't let the terrorists win! We must comply with this obivously good idea.
Oh wait...
Man in the middle attacks don't work if you pre-share keys in a secure way (in person, on a disk, etc.) or require keys to be signed by someone you trust.
Hey guys this isn't new news, my father works for a telecom company where they produce cable modem termination systems. One of the requirements mandated by federal law was that in order to sell their product they had to write a backdoor for the FBI. This is nothing new and unfortunately is just another example of creating alot of noise by not doing that much under the guise of protecting citizens.
It's been ruled as implicit in the US Constitution (the basis of Roe v. Wade) and is explicit in the California Constitution. This, by virtue of the 10th Amendment, should trump the Feds. I say "should", because like much of the rest of the document, the Supremes seem to be unable to read or comprehend the 10th amendment.
You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
The 4th Ammendment covers it pretty well:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now, maybe I'm just a crazy left-wing wacko, but I think one should be able to reasonably extraplotate "papers and effects" to include their own computer networks and files.
Not to rain on your parade, but check the definition of terrorist: it's well accepted that a terrorist is someone who employs terror as a political weapon.
The more the US resorts to giving up freedoms in order to "combat" terrorism, the more terrorists win. It's simple, sadly enough.
This is about engineering the creation of a hardline Islamic theocractic regime (i.e., the return of the caliphate), and the best way to do that is to terrorize the enemy that works to westernize (read "support freedom") predominantly muslim nations. There is a long history of terror and assassination used as a tactic against western incursion:
We are seeing the modern version of a conflict that is hundreds of years old, and it has nothing to do with Usama bin Laden wanting George W. Bush to convert to Islam.perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
In Russia the FSB (ex-KGB) apparently has (or at least had, the article is quite old) been forcing this on ISP's for years, but some are trying to fight it. I guess KGB is now considered as a good role-model...
http://www.libertarium.ru/libertarium/14424
Actually, the rest of the world feels that the US foreign involvement has little to do with terrorism. I should know, i'm part of them :)
Actually I'd say it who you ask and how you ask, how the questions are phrased. The US has supported terrorists, bin Laden for instance. He is a terrorist the US supported along with the Taliban when they were fighting against the Soviet Union. President Bush gave the Taliban millions of taxpayer dollars shortly after entering office. In Kosovo, Serbia, the US supported the KLA terrorists again Serbia. In East Timor, former president Ford and Henry Kissinger, armed and supported Indonesia's Soharto invasion of East Timor in 1975-6 after Portugal who colonized East Timor granted then their independence. From the invasion to after the 1999 vote when East Timorese voted for independence 200,000 East Timorese were massacred, one third of the population. Ford and Kissinger again supported Chile's Gen Penochet's overthrow of a democratically elected government and started a dictatorship. Thousands in Chile simply disappeared, many were murdered and thousands more tortured.
There are many examples where the administrations of the US supported military dictatorships and the overthrow of democratic governments, Iran and Iraq amoung them. The only qualification for said support was the be anticommunist. And that's not even bringing up what was done to the Native Amnerican Indians with all the signed treaties the US broke.
Sure the US has done good and helped some in need but it has also supported those who violated human rights and committed atrocities.
FalconShould there be a Law?