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."

Comments

Re:Why do they always have to be insecure?

[ArbitraryConstant]

"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.

Re:right to privacy

[n6mod]

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.

Re:right to privacy

[hazem]

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.

Re:9/11 changed everything..

[Lisandro]

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.

Re:9/11 changed everything..

[EvilAlien]

They don't want us infidels to convert. This isn't about spreading or enforcing a religion. That is a christian tactic.

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:

As early as the last years of the eleventh century the Assassins had succeeded in setting firm foot in Syria and winning as convert the Saljug prince of Aleppo, Ridwan ibn-Tutush (died in 1113). By 1140 they had captured the hill fortress of Masyad and many others in northern Syria, including al-Kahf, al-Qadmus and al-'Ullayqah. Even Shayzar (modern Sayjar) on the Orontes was temporarily occupied by the Assassins, whom Usamah calls Isma'ilites. One of their most famous masters in Syria was Rachid-al-Din Sinan (died in 1192), who resided at Masyad and bore the title shakkh al-jabal', translated by the Crusades' chroniclers as "the old man of the mountain". It was Rashid's henchmen who struck awe and terror into the hearts of the Crusaders.

- from HITTI: THE ASSASSINS

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.