Slashdot Mirror
Law Enforcement Targets Online Communication
jesup writes "The FCC ruled yesterday that the CALEA applies both to broadband suppliers and to all calls made via VoIP providers. If they have any connection to the PSTN, it applies whether the call in question is IP-to-IP or not. Separately, all broadband suppliers will have to implement CALEA, which means providing access to law enforcement for trap-and-trace on all traffic on broadband connections. In related news, the FCC has also released a policy document that states that 'consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.' In theory, under this they could require wiretaps on in-game chat, or key-logging in file encryption programs."
the people's republic of united states.
This will be about as easy to implement as a ban on internet porn, which is to say impossible. Sure they can get the major providers to comply, but good luck tracking down every chat room operator.
which means providing access to law enforcement for trap-and-trace on all traffic on broadband connections.
Goddamnit, I swear, the last few decades in America have been more like an Orwell book than the books themselves.
I'm moving up to Canada, the worst they have there is stray polar bears. Who's coming with me?
I have no problem providing stronger encryption communications to my customers. I've helped implement encrypted VoIP before VoIP was a defined term. Some of the shadier "organizations" already employ an incredible amount of geeks -- $100,000 a year cash (for a 20 hour a week job) is hard to say no to.
These laws are a waste of money. A VoIP stream can easily be hidden in a Quake3 online stream played between bots. There's too much information changing hands.
And who the hell are they trying to catch? Drug dealers? Terrorists? Enforcement of either set of laws only creates more people filling in the shoes of those caught.
We're not making a dent in any non-violent crime, why throw more money at a non-problem?
I assume this means we continue to have the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, as long as it is OK with law enforcement. (hmmm)
Coding Blog
Will the coup be bloody?
The sad thing is that any criminal/terrorist organization is going to encrypt any communication they want to keep secret. There are plenty of alternatives for passing secret messages such as posting coded messages in plain sight on public forums (even /.!). This is going to have more impact on Joe Citizen's privacy than on criminal behaviour.
When all else fails, run.
Which, translated into English, means: "if you want to use service X, but Law Enforcement can't tap service X, then you no longer are entitled to use X". For "X" substitute whatever service you like. Wonderful.
What if some [terrorist, child porn, etc.] group decided to set up a network of Asterisk or Bayonne servers, virtually circumventing any established VoIP providers? I'm not sure about Bayonne, but Asterisk is extremely easy to throw together and set up. Will they make setting up such "unlicensed" servers illegal? I shudder to think what that would do to the community at large...
We are the music makers. We are the dreamers of the dreams.
The FCC appears to truly believe that they have been granted power to regulate Internet usage as they see fit.
It's not just the wording, it's the mentality. Everything about the document suggests that the FCC is the source from which the right to use the Internet flows. AND that the *consumer* is ultimately responsible for anything "illegal" that is on his computer. Even if it's just a matter of unknowningly using a VoIP protocol that doesn't allow tapping.
There's no other way to read it, and furthermore, it's the only "logical" (in terms of the logic of empire) way of dealing with the situation. Since they can never regulate the internet COMPANIES - who will all swiftly relocate to another country - they will have to regulate the PEOPLE to make sure their laws are followed. And they have to do that since, of course, laws passed must be enforced.
This is, as they say, doubleplus ungood.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Ask yourself why the government has never tried to open everyones letters, photocopy them and then reseal and post them?
It's not because they wouldn't like to, it's just too much hassle to do it. Even if they did try to do it, the public would be outraged, yet far less noise is being made just because the medium is electronic rather than paper. Computers make it possible to snoop on people cheaply and that is the problem. As technology progresses, more and more snooping abilities will become economical.
They would like you to believe that this is to thwart terrorists, but terrorists will of course use the strongest encryption and will not play by the rules. I believe the general public are the real target here. If you suspect a certain person is a terrorist, there are already many ways you can put them under surveillance. You can install keyloggers on their computer, bug them, bounce lasers of windows etc etc. If you don't know who the terrorists are you have to perform mass surveillance of eveyones mail looking for keywords. The problem is that terrorists won't say "Meet me by the Bank of America with the Semtex" they will say something like "See you at the pub on Wednesday. Bring that new playstation game.".
Recent freedom of information releases in the UK (my country) have shown that the police have in the past infiltrated groups such as the anti-apartheid movement and other legitimate and non-threatening political groups. That's the sort of behaviour I expect in Uzbekistan not the UK. We must also not forget Echlon , which has been used to spy on European businesses. Our governments have shown that they cannot be trusted time and time again. We must not allow them to use the fear of terrorism to rob us of our rights and privacy.
Anyway. I have a counter proposal. We now know that politicians are making important decisions in face to face meetings so that there are no electronic records. I propose that all politicians be required to wear head mounted video cameras that record everything they say and do. The tapes must be handed in and stored in the event of any enquiry. We can explain that we have to do this because of the terrible threat of CORRUPTION. Anyone in the government could be involved in CORRUPTION and innocent politicians will have nothing to fear in these new measures. We have to balance the need for government secrecy with the important fight against CORRUPTION. We cannot allow CORRUPTION to win.
Seriously people, get over it. CALEA has been law for well over a decade (1994, to be exact). This is not something new. CALEA does not give the feds power to do wiretaps, either. That power was explicitly defined in 1968. It was defined in order to PREVENT law enforcement from snooping on people. Prior to that, there was no law about it, and cops could eavesdrop and tap phones as much as they felt like. The law in 1968 defined their power to tap communications, but also put strenuous restrictions on how they could go about doing it. Now, they have to jump through a bunch of hoops, apply for a court order, and hope they can convince the judge that this breach of personal privacy is truly necessary.
CALEA simply means that communications providers must bear the cost of installing equipment to help law enforcement do these wiretaps. The FCC ruling, as it relates to CALEA and VoIP, only means that VoIP companies must provide similar equipment to the feds as the telcos have been providing for many years.
Now, as to the rest about broadband service providers... The FCC can go ahead and enact this rulemaking all it wants. However, they do not have the power to do this. CALEA specifically exempts information service providers, under which definition fall all ISPs. This part at least will be thrown out in court if it is ever challenged. As to VoIP, they also fall under the definition of information service provider, but at least the FCC has a small leg to stand on when trying to force them under CALEA, as there is a section (in this case, a conflicting section) of CALEA which refers to "substantial replacement" of traditional telcos. This part could also be thrown out, depending on arguments before the court, and who is more persuasive.
However, the pending legislation linked earlier on Slashdot (last week; not looking it up) would impact these issues in CALEA, and bring VoIP and broadband, etc., under CALEA type regulation, depending on whether or not it gets passed in its current nascient form. However, once again, this would not be GRANTING this power to law enforcement. It's been around for a long, long time.
Also, with respect to a couple posts I saw below about EU people looking down on these major invasions of US privacy, don't fool yourselves. Most EU countries are lightyears ahead of the US in their pervasive monitoring and regulation of all internet services.
I dunno, I'm not doing anything illegal, why should I be scared?
Wait until a friend of yours is coerced in submitting your name as a suspected terrorist. Recall the McCarthy era and heed your warning. Apathy towards civil rights is terrible, and it's a problem you'll find when it affects you.
Again, recall the McCarthy era
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
There have been innocent people put on the No-Fly list too, and they had a heck of a time getting off. It is very possible to be innocent and imprisioned. Because there is supposed to be some right to privacy. Being constantly watched is a form of harrassment. That to me is the real point. It used to be that a man's home was his castle, and now it's becoming clear that Orwell was not paranoid enough.
Has it occured to anyone here that over time, more and more OSS is going to become "borderline illegal"? That we may end up with VLC as a program that you can't import into the USA (because of its DVD capabilities); that Asterix will move out of the states (because it provides private communication without a corporate entity, and will eventually be "regulated" in such a way that only telcos could use it); that even simple tools like GNU shred will "disappear"? B.S. like the E911 service are merely thinly vieled threats against existing VoIP providers, by way of legislation from the dominate telcos to ensure that VoIP doesn't take off...without them leading the way, of course.
I'm beginning to think that I should hoard source code like never before...
Suddenly, that 15-CD debian distro looks better and better, provided the source code is provided.
RMS may sound like a crackpot to our facist overlords^W^Wcorporate lobby, but he's right on the money - if the source code to a program can be controlled (by hardware, software, or firmware, no difference) then you really don't have any freedom as to what you can do. And that kind of freedom scares some people, but not for the reasons that are presented in the nightly news; you have to remember, never in human history have you had a world-wide connected information network that spanned cultures, beliefs, and challenged the status quo in every case. What we are seeing is the slow relentless progress of those entities - governments, transnational corporations, and hyper-wealthy private interests - to "dumb down" or take away from that potential. If people woke up one day and realized that they didn't have to work for someone else to provide for themselves, well, they jig would be up and the few in privledge would find themselves fighting to maintain control, as they always have through the ages. This isn't about political spectrums such as right vs left, democracy vs communism; this is about power, and the maintenance of power. Money, which years ago used to actually have a value of some sort, has degenerated into just another form of power. In this case, CALEA is power applied for both the telcos (who suddenly are felling the heat from VoIP) and government interests (in this case, the existing regime^W administration wants to extend its powerbase).
(Yawn) enough ranting for today, go outside and play...
the law will never be above mathematics. they can have my private key when they pry it from my cold dead hand.
problem is that the government has the legal authority and power to do just that. Government has a legal monopoly on violence and the non defensive use of force which they are supposed to use with a lot more discretion than this ruling shows. This is no different than if the FCC said they had a right to post an agent in my home who would look over my shoulder as I typed 'just in case' I am suspected of a crime in the future. It is a trespass by the government before reasonable suspicion that a crime will be or has been commited.
What happened to the good old days when a wire tap actually meant just that, permission to actually tap into the wire at someone's residence when there was reasonable suspicion of a crime, and the recordings didn't have to be served up on a silver platter to the FBI or whatever other alphabet soup agency wants to increase their funding with a headline this month.
Wire tap was never meant to mean that we be compelled to act against ourselves even prior to the suspicion that a crime has ever even been commited let alone that we have commited it. The effect of this and the slippery slope that we have been on for many decades is that wiretaps are in effect in place on everyone before any suspicion, before any consideration of facts, you are wire tapped because you are human and likely to commit a crime at some point in your life. And in this age of ever growing burden of law and regulation it is becoming ever more likely that the assumption of guilt will take the place of presumption of innocence because of practical considerations.
Innocent as long as we obey, otherwise guilty. Thankfully, there is still room enough left to keep your head down and stay out of trouble for the most part, but God help those of us that want the world to be a better place. We are liable to find a world of hurt for our troubles. But I suppose that every generation has had its enemies in the state, look at the racial civil rights movement, look at the progressives, look back further and you'll see a whole lot of people in power that abuse their authority for no other reason than to hold on to it as long as they can.
In the end there will always be more of us than them as long as you choose to belong to the human race rather than some small minded group that focuses on our differences rather than what we have in common. And even with technology a minority can't hold power over a majority forever.
I just hope in my lifetime I don't see any more Americans convinced that they need to give up their Rights and dignity for some false promise of security.
I am not sure to take this as a joke or seriously......
seriously though, I have lived in a few places in my life that
were bonnified police states (the former soviet union, yugoslavia,
egypt, etc). travelling with the family as a kid because your parents
worked for the government was fun in some ways (and terrifying in others).
I witnessed the results of police states first hands.
first rule of thumb: such a state acts for its own interest
first and cares very little for the individual. anyone not conforming to the
"states" ideal is labeled a threat and "disappeared".
so. my question is this: who minds the minders?
TMH
Understanding is much like a 3-edged-sword. in this: there are always 2 sides and the truth.