FCC Giving Veto Power to FBI Over VoIP?

An anonymous reader writes "In this article, the FCC reveals that if you're using VoIP products at your own behest then you may have personal legal requirements to provide the FBI with access to information they might want to intercept. Or to put it another way, using encryption with VoIP can prevent the FBI from implementing wire taps."

Comments

FCC 05-151

[TripMaster Monkey]

Since the 'obscure policy document' mentioned in TFA is in PDF format, here is the text of that document, formatted and stripped of the numerous bibliographical references:

POLICY STATEMENT
Adopted: August 5, 2005 Released: September 23, 2005
By the Commission:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The availability of the Internet has had a profound impact on American life. This network of
   networks has fundamentally changed the way we communicate. It has increased the speed of
   communication, the range of communicating devices and the variety of platforms over which we can send
   and receive information. As Congress has noted, "[t]he rapidly developing array of Internet . . . services
   available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational
   and informational resources to our citizens." The Internet also represents "a forum for a true diversity of
   political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual
   activity." In addition, the Internet plays an important role in the economy, as an engine for productivity
   growth and cost savings.
2. In section 230(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act),
   Congress describes its national Internet policy. Specifically, Congress states that it is the policy of the
   United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet"6
   and "to promote the continued development of the Internet."7 In section 706(a) of the Act, Congress
   charges the Commission with "encourag[ing] the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of
   advanced telecommunications capability" - broadband - "to all Americans."
3. In this Policy Statement, the Commission offers guidance and insight into its approach to the
   Internet and broadband that is consistent with these Congressional directives.
   
   II. DISCUSSION
4. The Communications Act charges the Commission with "regulating interstate and foreign
   commerce in communication by wire and radio."9 The Communications Act regulates
   telecommunications carriers, as common carriers, under Title II.10 Information service providers, "by
   contrast, are not subject to mandatory common-carrier regulation under Title II."11 The Commission,
   however, "has jurisdiction to impose additional regulatory obligations under its Title I ancillary
   jurisdiction to regulate interstate and foreign communications." As a result, the Commission has
   jurisdiction necessary to ensure that providers of telecommunications for Internet access or Internet
   Protocol-enabled (IP-enabled) services are operated in a neutral manner. Moreover, to ensure that
   broadband networks are widely deployed, open, affordable, and accessible to all consumers, the
   Commission adopts the following principles:
   
   To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
   nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of
   their choice.
   
   To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
   nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their
   choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
   
   To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
   nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that
   do not harm the network.
   
   To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
   nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers,
   application and service providers, and content providers.
   
   III. CONCLUSION
5. The Commission has a duty to preserve and promote the vibrant and open character of the
   I

The FBI now owns us. We have no right to privacy.

[elucido]

You see, our FBI and federal government has the right to tap all our phones, wiretap everything, spy on us, use satelites to watch our every move, and to control our thoughts and remove our freedom of speech. The FBI owns you, you do not own the FBI.

So just let them search your house and tap your phone, its not like you can stop them and its not like anyone cares about the constitution anymore or privacy. For all the talk I hear on slashdot, none of you actually care about privacy or the constitution. If you do, then prove it and defend the constitution.

See for yourself how you can defend the constitution if you actually care about it. Save the constitution

Some links to get you started

[temojen]

OpenH323 (for private VOIP systems)
IPSec Howto (for transparently encrypted VPNs to secure your private VOIP system)

One-time pads save the day in two steps

[Anonymous Coward]

1) XOR your encrypted sensitive phone call with an unencrypted benign conversation of the same length.

2) When asked for the key to the encrypted sensitive phone call, insist that you use one-time pads, the only unbreakable form of encryption. Give the XOR that you computed in step (1).

Re:Yet another wet-dream...

[anothy]

let's hear it for broad, sweeping generalizations! yay!

please. i know or have known lots of cops, and not one fits your mold. most cops would rather lock up criminals and leave the innocents alone. they've got a genuinely difficult job to do, and are competing with ever-increasingly advanced criminals. i think the wiretapping laws in the states are significantly more onerous than they should be, but painting cops as a bunch of fascists does absolutely nothing to help that problem, and in fact makes having an intelligent conversation about the issues more difficult. this certainly doesn't qualify as "Insightful".

Re:Woot!

[gcnaddict]

"3 consecutive dupes!"

Are you sure this is a dupe? I cant find a previous version of this article anywhere. Want to post a link?

Until then, I guess we can say that "this post of yours is a dupe", right? I mean, you posted the wrong link :P

Re:Um... waitaminute...

[ahodgson]

Can someone please explain to me exactly WHEN the FCC became a law-creation body?

1934. FDR outsourced a lot of Congress's job.

Re:What about POTS encryption?

[CodeBuster]

The United States Government used the STU-III Secure Telephone System for unclassified but sensitive diplomatic communications with their embassies overseas during the 1980s. Bruce Schneier mentions this system in his book, "Applied Cryptography". The system involved special hardware at both ends (ie each person needed an STU-III phone w/a special key dongle) and was never generally available to the public. The key distribution was supposedly managed by the NSA.

Re:The FBI now owns us. We have no right to privac

[demachina]

"There's only a debate if you don't know how to read."

How about this for a deal, I'll learn to read if you learn to write.

This statement is best described as ambiguous. You might be saying if I knew how to read I would understand that there is no right to privacy, or you might be saying if I could read I would know there is an indisputable right to privacy.

If you read the link I provided or you watched the confirmation hearing for Chief Justice Roberts on CSPAN, you would understand there is a huge debate over whether there is a right to privacy and what its bounds are. The Supreme Court has decided both ways on whether wire tapping violates our Constitution or our right to privacy, ergo there IS a debate.

Me personally I hope there is such a right and our courts will uphold it and slap down all the politicians, law enforcement officers and bureaucrats who want to usurp it using fear mongering. Unfortunately we live in a complex society. There are no inalienable rights that we can take as a given. The only rights we have are the ones we successfully fight to preserve. If we let a group of people seize control of the White House and Congress who have no regard for the rights of individuals and who are power mad, they can stack the courts to their liking and they can do whatever they feel like with our rights.

"Next overrated troll."

Next anonymous coward who can't make a coherent argument and who resorts to ad hominem attacks instead. Why don't you try making a coherent argument next time.

Re:With or Without a Warrant?

[DavidTC]

You can't be required to give DNA or blood samples off yourself without a warrant.

Of course, it's legal for the police to take DNA and blood from a place they know you were, or something you throw away, if they have a warrant for that place or it's public. And if those match DNA or blood at the crime scene, hey, they've good grounds for a warrant to see if they are yours.

Fingerprints are different, as nothing is taken from you. You can be required to provide those at any time, although in many places it's not legal for the police to keep them unless you're actually convicted of a crime.

However, yes, none of those are subject to the 5th, which even warrants can't override. This is because it is not 'you' testifiying, it is merely evidence that you are walking around with.