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."

63 of 300 comments (clear)

  1. your rights by BarkLouder · · Score: 3, Funny

    All your right are belong to us!

    1. Re:your rights by Grax · · Score: 5, Funny

      The secret police are there to protect you from the "bad people". We should all support their efforts.

    2. Re:your rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:your rights by jesup · · Score: 3, Informative

      Original poster here.

      You're correct that CALEA doesn't *authorize* wiretaps - but it does require that providers make calls easily tappable (when they might otherwise be slow, hard or impossible to tap).

      And as it applies to VoIP providers, it requires they set things up to allow tapping calls that previously weren't covered (IP-to-IP calls), if the service offers _any_ sort of connection to the PSTN, even through a 3rd party.

      TFA has all the footnotes justifying this expansion of powers... Basically if the data goes through a switch or router on a public network, they're covered.

    4. Re:your rights by proudhawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
  2. welcome to by mobilebuddha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the people's republic of united states.

    1. Re:welcome to by heavy+snowfall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Scary that by trying to avoid communism your country ends up with exactly the features of it that you don't want. You (not you but your people) refuse useful stuff like national healthcare and free college tuition, but are more than happy to give up your right to privacy in the name of the war on (terror|drugs|dancing|barney).

      --
      Use your bluetooth phone as a modem for Linux

  3. Right... by pete6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Right... by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure they can get the major providers to comply, but good luck tracking down every chat room operator.

      Yes sir! We will comply with your "family first" and "anti-terrorism" chat room rools even though they violate our First Amendment rights! Tb shpx lbhefrys lbh snfpvfg cvtf! Oh sorry, my fingers were on the wrong keys. Yes, "USA! USA! USA! Down with terrorists and porno!"

      Jura gur shpx ner jr tbvat gb fgnaq hc gb gur snfpvfg shpxref naq svanyyl gryy gurz gb trg shpxrq? Sorry, the keys are slippery.

    2. Re:Right... by Virak · · Score: 3, Funny

      Geez, you should at least use something secure, like 2ROT13.

    3. Re:Right... by interiot · · Score: 3, Informative
      Due to the special properties of ROT13, the number of rounds must be even, otherwise the algorithm provides only as much security as simple ROT13. Good implementations would be e.g. 2ROT13, 4ROT13, 6ROT13 or 2048ROT13.

      Currently, an implementation of 2ROT13 exists, which is called Pretty Good Double ROT13 Privacy - or short PG2ROT13P - and is meant to be a successor to the infamous Pretty Good Privacy cryptography toolkit.

      Long-term goals are also to make the EU parliament and US congress pass laws that require all personal letters, postcards and even face-to-face conversations to be encrypted with 2ROT13.

      Brilliant!
    4. Re:Right... by arkanes · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Wait, isn't it illegal for the fed to spy on it's citizens?

      No.

      Won't they need to get a court order to wire tap even with VoIP?

      Yes and no. Mostly no, these days. They need a warrant, but they can get them after the fact, and from secret courts.

      And how would that work in a chat room where lots of good citizens are talking?

      If it's like interception of email, they're supposed to just ignore what anyone says unless they're talking to the person being tapped. I leave it up to your imagination just how tightly agents stick to that rule.

    5. Re:Right... by g2devi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dam straight.

      And you're not alone.

      The following organizations have proudly joined the fight for freedom:
                  MAtrOx, microsoST, ALexa, INTerpol, Avanti, LIBerAty alliNnce, HUeS aircraft, Sara lEe, INgsoc

      Who else will join The Fight?

  4. Gahrewjhrjkhare by Brandon+K · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Gahrewjhrjkhare by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm moving up to Canada, the worst they have there is stray polar bears. Umm, what about celin dion ?

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    2. Re:Gahrewjhrjkhare by rleesBSD · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not such a good idea eh? I myself was just thinking about moving down south a few hundred miles to Seattle ... cuz the King of Canada has authorized some of the same crap ... It appears that involuntary compliance was in the fine print of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA, eh?)

    3. Re:Gahrewjhrjkhare by bombadier_beetle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ah yes, Canada, land of the free, where thought crimes are severely punished.

      --

      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
    4. Re:Gahrewjhrjkhare by mrbcs · · Score: 2, Informative
      If yer comin, come to Alberta. It's the only province worth livin in. We have tons of jobs here. Incase you haven't heard, we have oil... lots of it.. and we're makin a killing on it this year. So much that we're all getting $400 each around Christmas. Family of five will get 2 grand. Sure beats Ontari-OWE.

      It's kinda like what america used to be when you guys had rights, though we still have to put up with the easterners for a while before we separate.

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
  5. Reasons to go black market IT by dada21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Reasons to go black market IT by Concern · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why throw more money at a non-problem?

      I know your question is partly rhetorical. But it's such a good one, I'll answer.

      Social control.

      The people in power today are anxious to return to the J Edgar Hoover days of federal "law" "enforcement," when federal agents could be employed as a goon squad for servicing the needs of the dominant political and economic interests backing the government.

      To make this good, they need eliminate oversight (such as judicial review), and expand their powers (limiting civil and human rights). As far as I can see, this has basically been the sole law enforcement agenda of both Bush and Clinton - the only difference was the intensity with which they pursued it.

      --
      Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    2. Re:Reasons to go black market IT by retendo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree. If you really want to hide your communications, just roll your own communications programs and/or roll your own encryption. Although you might not create the strongest encryption scheme for the "law enforcement" folks to spy on you they have to federally funded script kiddies. I'm sure they have scripts to crack main stream encryptions. If you were one of "them" wouldn't you just go after the low hanging fruit first?

      It's kinda like the car alarm theory, your alarm doesn't have to prevent the vehicle from being stolen, it just has to make it sufficiently difficult so the thief doesn't want to bother.

      At least for now.....

    3. Re:Reasons to go black market IT by arkanes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In fairness, this has pretty much been the goal and intent of law enforcement pretty much forever. In fact, the idea that laws (and the enforcement thereof) are in any way for the benefit of the citizenry is a pretty recent concept, historically speaking.

    4. Re:Reasons to go black market IT by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree.

      Since the laws won't do anything about intelligent criminals, and the dumb ones aren't a big threat, I think the real target of the laws is otherwise-law-abiding civilians.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    5. Re:Reasons to go black market IT by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I've actually thought about that some. It would be trivial to provide any organization that has 'runners' (I'm thinking organized crime here.) with unbreakable one-time pad encryption.

      Assume a 20k/s VoiP stream. A CD could be used as a OTP for about 9 hours,.

      Set up a secure generation site somewhere, make a dozen CD-RWs, run them to computers all over a city.

      Each diskless computer boots off the CD using a custom Linux distro that takes up maybe 50 megs, and the rest is encrypted data. It boots up, sucks in the CD, and erases it. (And you then shred it.)

      Yes, if the power fails, you're in trouble, but a lack of communications for five minutes is better than prison. You can always just do the 'talk using vague references on the phone' trick. Or the boss can carry an emergency wallet-sized CD. (You could have a UPS, but the best security would be to power off the computer for anything.)

      You could either do a shared system, where all the CDs are the same, or you could just have each computer be able to talk to a central site, and that site reencode and send it out elsewhere. (The later is not only more secure, but let's you send out the disks less often, and on a more random schedule, as each individually run out. Might be overkill, though.)

      For even more security, you could send more than two CD via multiple means, and XOR them together. Thus requiring feds to intercept two CDs and duplicate them without you noticing. Or three or four.

      And the nice thing about a OTP is that it's fast.

      I suspect that organized crime is perfectly happy with purchasing throw-away cell phones, however.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    6. Re:Reasons to go black market IT by Snaller · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have no problem providing stronger encryption communications to my customers

      You may have a problem when they make it illegal and make you choose between 50 years in jail or not doing it.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  6. Freedom of speech, as long as the cops OK it by Grax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I assume this means we continue to have the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, as long as it is OK with law enforcement. (hmmm)

    1. Re:Freedom of speech, as long as the cops OK it by monkeydo · · Score: 2, Informative

      This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Perhaps you are thinking of a different part of the Bill of Rights? The forth amendment is probably more applicable.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    2. Re:Freedom of speech, as long as the cops OK it by quentin_quayle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it is about freedom of speech. What happens when they start to extend it to non- PSTN (p2p) VOIP?

      "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."

      We are fast approaching a kind of showdown between legal requirements and free/open source software. The government will dictate "all applications of type T must include feature X" (e.g., detection of anti-counterfeiting patterns in images) or "...must not include feature Y" (e.g., encryption without backdoors, or removal of anti-copying hobbles). And FOSS devs will make the apps that way - but of course any programmer can remove X or include Y and recompile. Even nonprogrammers can do it with instructions and/or code patches.

      Then the confrontation comes. Even technically-clueless politicians will eventually notice that it's not working. Then the state can (a) give up on the requirement/prohibition (b) play whack-a-mole with individual prosecutions (c) start requiring licences for compilers and programmable hardware, and/or prohibiting release of source. Maybe (d) a vast DRM regime like the so-called "trusted computing" scheme.

      Am I missing something? Howw else can this go?

      And if we ever get to a point where you're not allowed to freely compile and run whatever code you want to, then freedom of speech is abolished in all electronic media. And all possibility of computer security is abolished, because you can't verify source and therefore you can't trust any software to obey you rather than someone else. You won't be able to verify that your comomunications really get to the intended recipient unaltered, or that news you read is what another party intended to send, etc..

  7. My internet sex life is ruined! by dusik · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now, not only am I afraid to look at porn on the internet, I can't even cyber in peace!

  8. Secure Lines by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When will I see the first voip provider which sends a Java client applet to my phone (not a PC) with the call? It's not architecturally necessary, but I'd like that kind of encapsulated/authenticated voip client. End-to-end encryption of every call.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Secure Lines by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Interesting
      > When will I see the first voip provider which sends a Java client applet to my phone (not a PC) with the call?

      Why, as soon as the VOIP provider embeds CALEA support in the client applet that it sends to your phone, sir!

      > It's not architecturally necessary, but I'd like that kind of encapsulated/authenticated voip client. End-to-end encryption of every call.

      What you propose isn't architecturally necessary. But neither is it architecturally sufficient.

      Unless you're proposing to...

      a) write your own Java client or use an open-source client from a source you trust,
      b) install such a trustworthy client in read-only media on your phone (so that your phone's firmware won't ignore it and use a default built-in untrustworthy client),
      c) block that exploit by writing/downloading/compiling your phone's firmware from a source you trust,
      d) using a compiler you trust, compiled from source you trust, itself compiled on a system you trust, so that you don't get pwn3d by people who think like Ken Thompson
      , as per "Reflections on Trusting Trust", Communications of the ACM, August 1984
      e) install your compiled firmware on a phone in read-only fashion (oops, no flash ROM allowed!), so that the network can't tell your phone (either by exploit or by a design in the protocol) to "auto-upgrade" its firmware, overwriting your custom firmware with firmware from a source you don't trust,
      e) find a VOIP provider that will transmit packets from a phone meeting requirements (a-d) inclusive, while not
      f) having its doors bashed in on the rather sensible grounds that any provider that'll let you make a call from a device meeting (a-e) into the PSTN is by definition not in compliance with CALEA.

      If your adversary is merely the who owns the phone system (for a dose of irony, they're the third cousin five-takeovers removed from the people who brought us "Bell Labs"), you're just being paranoid.

      And if your adversary is the one who pwns the phone system (for a double dose of irony, they're the third cousin five-administrations removed from the people who brought us "1984"), you're not being paranoid enough.

      Serve the Computer. The Computer is your Friend.

  9. Military Misuse by Valacosa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So legally, we're forced to leave our lines of communication open for law enforcement.

    Who watches the watchers?

    IM programs aren't that hard to write, if someone really wants to avoid John Law they could just write a proprietary program with a proprietary encryption protocol. Is that technically illegal?

    Every time I read a story like this, I am reminded of that video on the 'net somewhere (too lazy to look for it) of military personnel using military equipment to watch a couple make out in a car.

    --
    "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
    1. Re:Military Misuse by Concern · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm pretty sure you're talking about this.

      "06 - 26"
      "This is 06."
      "Uh, we've got activity out here but I don't think we really need to report it"
      "What do you see?"
      "Ah, appears to be fornication in a converitble"
      (laughter)
      "Do a target score, and I'll be there in a second"
      (laughter)
      "Ah, we're taping it." ...

      "White Hawk 26 - Alpha 1 1 Uniform"
      "Ah, this is 26"
      "Roger, I'm gonna need that tape from you, and an additional..."
      "Roger, we'll make copies for everyone."


      Our tax dollars hard at work.

      --
      Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
  10. Not necessarily applicable to non-telecom uses by 14erCleaner · · Score: 4, Informative
    From TFA:

    A House of Representatives committee report prepared in October 1994 emphatically says CALEA's requirements "do not apply to information services such as electronic-mail services; or online services such as CompuServe, Prodigy, America Online or Mead Data (Central); or to Internet service providers."

    So it sounds like this will only apply to VOIP, not to email, chat-rooms, and so on, as the /. summary states.

    --
    Have you read my blog lately?
    1. Re:Not necessarily applicable to non-telecom uses by jesup · · Score: 4, Informative
      (Original poster here...)

      However, if you read the 59-page PDF of the CALEA ruling, you'll see CALEA applies to broadband operators in general. You're correct that it doesn't apply to email services - so hotmail doesn't have to deal with CALEA, but your ISP does.

      Also, they state on page 20 that CALEA doesn't apply to the storage of email at your ISP. This is true. However, they state CALEA does apply to the "switching and transmission" component of the ISP's service. So they can't ask for a copy of your stored email - but they CAN ask to tap all the traffic to and from your PC.

  11. I just wonder one thing... by Daneurysm · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Will the coup be bloody?

    1. Re:I just wonder one thing... by paranode · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not until they take away the football channels.

    2. Re:I just wonder one thing... by Daneurysm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I certainly didn't mean that funny...though I certainly appreciate it that way as well.

      It's a sad state of affairs in our government here. If these intrusions keep up at this rate the fabled 'joe six pack' will most certainly come to notice. Be it through known monitoring of his IM sessions, the tracking of his grocery purchases with his 'x saver' card, the easy availability of his cell-phone and SMS contents, the broadcast flag on his football games or the RFID in his walmart purchased jockey shorts.

      He will eventually notice...but will it ever reach critical mass and make him want to disturb his bubble of complacency? I think it will, eventually... but, sadly, I think his threshold is painfully high.

      Poor Joe Six Pack, of course... but even poorer are us 'early adopters' of the reality of what is going on here...speculative or not...

      ...what was that quote about the government afraid of the people prevents the people afraid of the government?

      ~Daneurysm

  12. In Soviet Russia... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Funny

    People have more privacy than YOU!

    <NELSON>HAH HAH!</NELSON>

  13. wiretaps by Whammy666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  14. Needs of Law Enforcement by N7DR · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So: consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.

    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.

    1. Re:Needs of Law Enforcement by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What I want to know is this: what authority does the FCC have to dictate what apps I use on a privately owned network?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  15. For those too lazy to do rot13... by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny
    According to rot13.com, the parent translates to:
    Lrf fve! Jr jvyy pbzcyl jvgu lbhe "snzvyl svefg" naq "nagv-greebevfz" pung ebbz ebbyf rira gubhtu gurl ivbyngr bhe Svefg Nzraqzrag evtugf! Go fuck yourself you fascist pigs! Bu fbeel, zl svatref jrer ba gur jebat xrlf. Lrf, "HFN! HFN! HFN! Qbja jvgu greebevfgf naq cbeab!"

    When the fuck are we going to stand up to the fascist fuckers and finally tell them to get fucked? Fbeel, gur xrlf ner fyvccrel.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  16. What about DIY PBXs? by ectospasm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  17. Piss 'em off! by Frodo+Crockett · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Use one-time pads for all your online communications. Of course, these are no good if you send them via an ordinary electronic medium. You need physical contact with the person who's getting the pads to ensure a secure exchange.

    This wouldn't be too difficult to do--you could print normal-looking business cards with a short key printed on the back in UV-reactive ink. (That's invisible ink to those of you in Rio Linda.)

    As for meeting the people you need to give pads to, need I remind you that this is Slashdot? I'll see most of you at the next big scifi/anime/gaming/tentacle porn convention.

    --
    "The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
  18. Imagine the possibilities by evil+agent · · Score: 5, Funny

    Imagine someone playing a multiplayer fps with a screen name like George Bush or something. Every time he gets killed, the feds would have to investigate!

    --
    End transmission.
  19. We of the EU by FidelCatsro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We of the EU , The common Wealth and all other nations in the world would like to thank the USA .
    What with these new Spiffy morality and Communications laws ,we will likely see a sharp rise in investment and customers (and already have in many cases ) .
    I would like to thank your politicians from the bottom of my heart for my recent pay rise .

    Though i do feel sympathy for the thousands of unemployed they are attempting to create in their efforts to secure the votes .. um I mean Save the souls of their good people .

    --
    The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
  20. This is damned creepy by JayBlalock · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Did anyone read the actual policy document? The arrogance in it is just stunning. It has a list of things the consumer is "entitled" to do, every one with a legality-related caveat.

    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.
    1. Re:This is damned creepy by AthenianGadfly · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or, to put it more succinctly, "You will respect our authoritay!"

  21. Damn MSCE dropouts! by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What if my "authorized, standard encryption algorithm" is poorly implemented?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  22. "They have made their decision... by mcc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "They have made their decision, now let them enforce it" is honestly the first thing that comes to mind.

    Or in other words, how the hell does the FCC even have the power to enact this rule? The FCC of course has the ability to set standards for telephones; if someone wishes to patch a computer program into the "normal" phone network, then of course it's reasonable that those calls follow the same regulations as any other phone provider. But what they're talking about now sounds way, way outside the scope of anything the FCC was ever empowered or intended to regulate. It reminds me of when the FCC demanded copy control chips be put into every TV and video card, until some months later, just before the deadline for the regulations to begin, the courts, in response to inquiry by the EFF, pointed out that, no, the FCC doesn't have the right or power to demand such things.

    Has anyone spoken to the EFF or ACLU about possibly challenging this new ruling in court?

  23. Attack on Privacy by MrSteveSD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Attack on Privacy by MrSteveSD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes of course. The notion that the government wants to engage in mass surveillance of the public is ludicrous, ranking along side alien abduction and the existance of Santa Claus. Such a thing has never occured in any country and anyone who suggests such a thing is obviously a tinfoil hat wearing crackpot.

      I have to stop now. Nurse is coming to take my crayons away.

    2. Re:Attack on Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I come from the recently naturalized class of people in america and for 2 years after 9/11 all messages from abroad came unsealed in a plastic bag. I guess after they realized birthday cards and christmas cards weren't evil they stopped.
      If you think mass invasions of privacy aren't perpertrated by the government you are mistaken.

  24. Re:Umm.... TFH? by rainman_bc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  25. Re:Umm.... TFH? by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  26. This is what happens.... by sweetnjguy29 · · Score: 2

    ....when you elect fascist republicans to office who don't believe in a right to privacy...or in any of your rights at all. We are all criminals in their minds. Mod me as flamebate...I dare you...but its true. And inciteful ;-)

  27. Re:Paging Phil by prz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know. I'm working on it.

  28. Guess what - Vonage already complies by Zebra_X · · Score: 4, Informative

    Something I wrote a few months ago:

    A few weeks ago while on vacation I bought a Linksys wrtp54g router from Radio Shack. It is touted as a two line VoIP router that is compatible with vonage. It seemed like what I needed at the time, a g capable wireless router that wouldn't crash like my old netgear.

    I set it up - and it's been running quite well for a month now. I noticed though, that I could SSH to it. What was curious was the fact that i couldn't login. I used the "administrative" login, but it didn't work. I also tried the other default passwords - with no luck. This made me wonder who infact had the password and could login to the router. I wasn't too worried about it. Until today.

    I've been trying to get inbound PPTP VPN working, and it hangs at "Verfiying Username and Password..." only to return error 721. Indeed it would seem that inbound GRE forwarding doesn't work. So I thought to myself, I'll just get a firmware update and everything will be happy. The question was "Where is the firmware?". It's not on linksys's site. I come to find that Vonage controls the firmware for this router. I've also found that it's not easy to get through proper channels. Also, it seems to not flash when the router is not in a "provisioned" state.

    This is where things get really interesting. It would seem that Vonage has complete control over the router. There are a number of default passwords that can be accessed, but not changed through the various interfaces. It would also seem that there is a bit of "phoning home" going on. Some of the firmware versions have automatic update installed allowing them to download the latest version via TFTP.

    Now that's an interesting topic. From my reading, the updates are not encrypted nor are they transmitted over a secure connection. There seems to be no verification of the contents of the firmware file. Let's go out on a limb for a moment and say that the update server is compromised and a compromised update is placed on the server. The update is then automatically, with no verification or intervention, downloaded and installed on all of the vonage routers that have been provisioned.

    The result: *PWND*. Every last router.

    This is terrible. Not only is it terrible, there is absolutely nothing on the box, or in the literature that says that this router is programatically connected to Vonage. There is absolutely no warning that there is even a *chance* that Vonage, could for example install various utilities or wares on your router at their discretion.

    This device should not be sold in stores. It should be shipped by Vonage to end customers who agree and ackknowledge that they are giving up control of what goes in and out of their network.

    Now it's time to do something about it.

  29. Corporate Interests Meddling in OSS by Bananas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  30. Cockroach Response by Phoenix666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sorry, but I just can't think of a better term. Everytime this sort of Big Brother article comes along, one of the two major memes that pops up is, "gee, the wording of the law/policy/whitepaper/directive says this, but it doesn't say that, so by simply reworking the protocol stack or implementing this kind of encryption stored in SeaLand we can perform a simple end-run around it." It's basically, right-wing neo-fascist does this, so I'm going to do that in an attempt to run, hide, and sneak around them. And I'm sorry, but this sort of attitude is a molly-coddled, namby-pamby Harvey milquetoast response that likely stems from the "I've been bullied/abused/neglected all my life" meme. Basically it's fascists whomp some area of the countertop and everyone runs for cover response.

    In truth, if we're talking about a war for the freedom of information, then Slashdotters collectively are the best possible warriors to prosecute that fight. In the rest of your life, you may have felt powerless--physically intimidated or socially out-classed. But in this realm you are the gods of the age. You must do something.

    There are myriad offline groups out there that are fighting their guts out against this sort of thing. You can help them. They all need I.T. systems that help them organize, raise money, and fight. You can sign up to code a system that will enable them to do so. You can give money from your above-average I.T. salary to support their efforts. Or you can get creative and blow everyone away. You can do so much, which is for you relatively little, and you will make an enormous difference.

    Still not sure what to do or where to channel your energies? Send me a message via Slashdot and I will be happy to give you some leads. For one, I started a grassroots political group in NY that has won several elections but still needs help with its website and volunteer organization system. We could use your help. Drop me a line and let's do something.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  31. Re:the law and mathematics by bigpat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  32. encryption is legal, and can be wiretapped. by bluGill · · Score: 2, Informative

    This won't be a problem. All it means is they have to go to my clients when they want a wiretap. The hook will be in all my code to do the wiretap, but you can't do it at the phone company because all you get is a stream of unintelligible bytes.