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

Loop

[JS_RIDDLER]

10 Read aticle
20 Read the existing slashdot comments here
      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/28/19 30221&tid=158&tid=215
30 Repost Comments here // previous /. links the same Cnet article

Re:Loop

[Netochka]

You know I'll never understand the thing all slashdot readers have with dupes. Think of a normal newspaper for a minute, and think about how stories are posted. If a story is interesting it'll usually be discussed for days on end by multiple reporters, editors, etc. and there'll be tons of repeating of information. Now, I know slashdot isn't exactly like this, but there are some similarities that can be drawn. Also, I'm not sure as to the number of stories submitted that the editors have to go through, but I'm sure it's quite a large number, and did you ever think that maybe the reason the editors are posting it again is because they've been receiving it a couple times and so obviously not everyone saw it the first time? I dunno, I'm sure this has been discussed endlessly too, but that's just my opinion.

In other words

[Boap]

Encryption is bad for people who want to spy on you

Old Joke

[glomph]

When Encryption is outlawed, only outlaws #$%TYHNFBGNHGFDCVFBGHFHkjhskjdghs346df/

Re:Old Joke

[Kjella]

When Encryption is outlawed, only outlaws #$%TYHNFBGNHGFDCVFBGHFHkjhskjdghs346df/

I think you'd better switch to strong encryption, I understood the last part even though it was encrypted...

Woot!

[temojen]

3 consecutive dupes!

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

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

With or Without a Warrant?

[nurb432]

If its *with* a warrant, nothing new here..

If its *without* then we have a privacy/rights problem that needs to be taken to the supreme court.

Re:With or Without a Warrant?

[Tackhead]

> If its *with* a warrant, nothing new here..
> If its *without* then we have a privacy/rights problem that needs to be taken to the supreme court.

SING IT!

She's my FBI!
Tappin my phone, FCC's surprised,
FCC make the VOIP lines die,
Sweet FBI!

But seriously, what do 80s hair metal bands have to do with it?

Re:With or Without a Warrant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite true.

There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the government to compell a person to testify against themselves. That includes providing encyption keys.

If the a policeman can prove to a judge that a search is needed, they can search. There is nothing in our Constitution that says that search must be successful, and much that says individuals have the absolute right to deny success by denying information.

Yet another reason our government is a cancer on the Constitution.

Re:With or Without a Warrant?

[ScrewMaster]

Of course, the irony of all this is that even if you don't encrypt your conversations electronically, you don't have to speak in the clear. I mean, suppose a terrorist leader wanted to tell one of his subordinates to do something that they would rather nobody else knew about. A few simple prearranged signals are all they would need:

Habib: Hello? Hello? This is Mr. Smith.

Achmed: Good evening, Mr. Smith. This is Mr. Jones. The finger is in the apple pie, and the panties are blue. Again, the panties are blue.

Habib: Ok. {click}

Will all this extra surveillance power catch a bunch of terrorists and keep us safe at night? Probably not. But there's no question in my mind that a whole bunch more of us ordinary U.S. citizens are going to get reamed. {sigh} Given how much this is costing us you'd think the least the Feds could do is hand out free tubes of KY. 'Cause sure as Hell's a mantrap we're gonna need it.

Re:With or Without a Warrant?

[hesiod]

> individuals have the absolute right to deny success by denying information

Can someone not be prosecuted for obstruction of justice in their own case? (I do realize you were talking about the Constitution..)

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.

What rights on-line?

[denissmith]

I wonder how long the rule will survive the courts, since you could probably argue that a built in backdoor to communications was a violation of the fourth amendment. It is a blanket warrantless search on everyone, whether they execute an actual search or not. Yet courts have allowed roadblocks to test for drunk driving ( which is the conceptually the same ) and they allow random bag searches it the Port Authority and the airports. All of these are really fourth amendment violations. Some day a court will probably swing the other way and forbid them ( would that make them liberal or conservative ? Bonus points for the correct answer! ), but for now the paranoids rule. I suppose the key question is what will they do to police the situation, If A sends B an encrypted packet, and A and B are using a well known port ( 22, say) and the packet crosses D's network, is D responsible for insuring that the packet is compliant? How is D to know? As long as A and B have access to an encryption software that has no backdoor I don't see how it matters whether Skype has a backdoor or not. Or is this a case where, as recently was reported, even owning encryption software of this type will be 'evidence of intent'?

Re:What rights on-line?

[MightyMartian]

Pah, the Founding Fathers were a bunch of terrorist Commies. Good Americans do what they're told. Heck, Thomas Jefferson slept with a black woman. What kind of good American would do that? Guys like Maddison weren't even Christians. Americans should set out immediately to burn that heathen, anti-God Constitution and replace it with "God Wants You To Bow Down To The FBI".

Re:What rights on-line?

[DavidTC]

While we're going all 'no freedoms not in our constitution', how about we get rid of any of the concept that corporations have 'rights'?

Because, you know, I'm not seeing that one.

Two Things

[Stanistani]

1) Is FBI over VOIP a new protocol?

2) Very apropos quote at bottom of the page:
"Increased knowledge will help you now. Have mate's phone bugged."

3) I have trouble with limits.

Re:Two Things

[fbjon]

1) Is FBI over VOIP a new protocol?

Yes, it runs on Veto Power(tm).

Some links to get you started

[temojen]

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

How Come This Only Applies To Voice?

[TastyWheat]

As far as I know I can use any encryption methods I want for web pages, email, bit torrent etc...

Why is VOIP different than other kinds of data? It is sent over the same medium.

It makes sense

[kwiqsilver]

If the FBI can't spy on every single US resident 24/7, how can they be sure we're not all terrorists?
:o

Did they have the FBI PR guy give the "if you haven't done anything wrong, then you should have nothing to hide" defense yet?

Re:It makes sense

[DavidTC]

Like the FBI would ever resort to spying on people it doesn't like. I'm sure it's never done that!

Hold on a minute, I think I just heard Martin Luther King Jr. spinning in his grave.

What the fuck?

[RLiegh]

What is it going to take to get people to be so pissed off they're motivated to make the changes necessary to get our rights back?

Re:What the fuck?

[MightyMartian]

What is it going to take to get people to be so pissed off they're motivated to make the changes necessary to get our rights back?

Nothing. People are, by and large, subservient cowards who will stand by and let fellow citizens be abused, allow themselves to be frightened by power-hungry governments, and well, just bloody well do what they're told. The American Revolution was a long time ago, and nobody particular remembers or cares to remember what got those guys so up in arms. Nearly half of Americans are so unfit that they don't even bother showing up at the polls, and a good chunk of those that do are simply motivated by fear broadcast to them by the spin doctors who know just how intellectually and emotionally incompetent most people are.

Re:What the fuck?

[hesiod]

> What is it going to take to get people to be so pissed off

Paying attention and recognizing bullshit/corruption. And they need to quit thinking the enemy is "the other party," instead of the people in their own party that are taking advantage of them.

"Subject to the needs of law enforcement"

[Stephen Samuel]

That's duckspeak for "citizens are not entitled to run the applications and services of their choice."

Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA: ...spokesman on Monday, who asked not to be identified by name...

We have the right to know everything... We have the obligation to reveal Nothing.

It's for your own good!

(Your name is being added to a List)

Don't worry about it....

Since I'm bored

[Sycraft-fu]

Depends on the way you are using liberal and conservative. People throw the terms around a lot and generally aren't using them in a well defined way.

If you are using them to describe a situation of social permissivness, then it would be liberal. Liberal social laws would be ones where people have the most freedoms possible, whereas conservative ones would be the least freedoms possible.

If you are suing them to describe legal changes, then conservative. A liberal view would be a progressive one, that laws should be changed from their current form, a conservative one would be a neutral or regressive one that laws should be left alone, or reverted to an earlier state.

So for political labels, who knows? What a "liberal" is and what a "conservative" is seems to vary with whoever says it.

Re:Since I'm bored

[Sycraft-fu]

Those are not liberal social policies. You are confusing causes that people like to term "liberal" (meaning Democrat generally) and "conservative" (meaning Republican generally) with actual definitions on policy stances. A liberal one is the giving of lots of rights, a conservative one is the giving of few. There is, of course, a continium between the two. An extremely liberal social view would be essentially an anarchist view, that there should be no restricitions on behvaiour whatsoever (anarchists are also extremely economically liberal, in that there should be no regulation whatsowever).

Also hate speech laws would be liberal in that they would be different. As I said, I liberal agenda with regard to legal change is one that our laws should change, a conservative one is to keep what we have or step back to what we used to have.

Politics is more complex than a black and white, liberal vs conservative view. There are many things onw can be liberal or conservative on, and many ways in whcih one can be liberal or conservative.

For example to go to just two factors: Social policy and economic policy. Stereotypical Republicans are socially conservative, economically liberal. That means they believe the government should be fairly restrictive of behaviour, but fairly permissive of economic freedom. Stereotypical Democrats are socially liberal, economically conservative. They believe the government should heavily regulate the economy, but people should be allowed to do as they please.

However it's not as cut and dry as that, neither are totally permissive or restrictive in their given area, different people in those groups have a different amount of liberal or conservative tendencies, and those aren't the only two factors.

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".

Bad apples

[rufey]

Part of the issue is that there are people who do bad things out there. And when bad things happen (Oklahoma City, 9/11, murder, kidnapping) people begin to ask why law enforcement wasn't able to stop the bad people before the bad thing happened.

I think that many of the laws that are put in place because of this are really overreaching, but on the other hand, if you were doing something illegal and found out that, starting the next day your phone was going to be tapped, you were going to be followed, and your every move was going to be scrutinized because law enforcement *thought* that you were doing someting illegal, you would most likely, overnight, come up with a game plan to make it look like you were just an ordinary law abiding citizen.

Sure there are people who abuse their power, and that is where the problem lies - it isn't necessarily with the law itself, its with the people who enforce the law thats the problem.

We in the US battle over whether its constitutional to have "under god" in the pledge of allegiance and whether "free speach" really means free speach.

Another analogy - corporations will (well, okay, they should) put a lot of time and effort into network security because it only takes one person on the inside, who has inside knowledge, to steal company data (whether it be customer data such as SSNs and credit card info or other confidential data). If everyone were trustworthy, there would be no need for network monitoring for threats. Likewise, if everyone were trustworthy and always obeyed the law and never did anything illegal, we wouldn't have all of these laws that dictate basically that we have no privacy anymore.

The problem is, how do you know before something bad happens who the bad people are?

Re:Great...

[KillShill]

yes the race to 1984.

the only downside is, is that the US and UK passed 1984 about 50 years ago.

to assume we're approaching it is to assume that MS will one day soon use their monopoly power to do illegal things.

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

[einhverfr]

There are a few things not covered in this ruling. The main one is end-to-end VOIP w/encryption. For example, how about VOIP via something like H.323 over an IPSec tunnel (point to point). So to say we have no right to privacy is misguided.

The idea seems to be that the courts should be able to authorize wiretapping of any media regardless of whether it is a traditional phone system or a VOIP connection over a public network.

Or how about someone using VOIP on a corporate intranet via a VPN? I would assume that these are explitly not covered? Especially if we are talking IPSec/GRE tunnels with traffic running through them. All law enforcement would know by tapping your broadband provider is that you are logged into the corporate VPN and that there is traffic going back and forth. You would not even know where the call was going or even that it was a call.

The second question is far more tricky.... Imagine that someone sets up some VOIP termination servers in a non-extradition country like Belize. These require IPSec/GRE tunnels and have a client that will set things up for you. The goal is to have a free worldwide and secure system. It seems to me that this would be well beyond the FCC's juristiction. But this might well be the way that things develop.

And in news to hand ...

[ignavus]

And in news to hand, the FBI wants to ban talking over backyard fences with the neighbors.

"We cannot bug all the backyard fences in America, so we'll just have to outlaw talking to the neighbors that way. Only authorised communication over interceptable devices can be permitted in a free society."

Fortunately, sociologists have confirmed that the universal failure of American couples to communicate, or even talk, during sex means that procreative activity will not have to be banned as well. The CIA confirmed that terrorists do their murderous acts because they are prevented from looking at wholesome bikini-clad girls - those secretive burqas hiding the female form are the true cause of extremism. "This is why our army in Iraq was trying to show the captured Iraqis that nakedness is good. I guess they just took it the wrong way", suggested an Army spokesperson.

"Only a terrorist would want free speech", added an FBI agent. "Encrypted VOIP is like wearing a burqa to hide a bomb."

And that's all the news (you're allowed to hear) from the Land of the Free.

Finally, the war on terror is won!

[Anonymous Coward]

(Scene: A cave in Pakistan.)

(Al Zawahri walks briskly into the cave where Osama Bin Laden is playing solitaire. Al is holding a printout from a CNet web page.)

Al: Osama! Look what the infidels have done! We cannot encrypt the holy warrior communication as planned. We must allow the cursed FBI to listen to our blessed instructions. What shall we do??

Osama: You make me sad this day. Allah has chosen to test us. Since we cannot possibly violate FCC regulation, we have no choice but to resort to manual couriers to communicate jihad instructions to our soldiers of freedom. Praise Allah, we will get our messages through.

Al: But do you not remember our cost estimates? We can't find enough holy warriors to handle all of our communication. We used the money to install air conditioning in the cave. We are doomed.

Osama: (After thinking). We have no choice but to shut down our operations once and for all. Curse the FBI and their unholy ways! Our jihad is over. (Raises fist in the air). Curse you George Bush! Curse you!

(Osama and Al pull off their robes and fake beards and put on business suits. Osama holds up a stuffed elephant and holds it up.)

Osama: They may have won the War On Terror with their infernal FCC regulations, but they will lose the War on Cheap Toy Imports! In America, big business is never regulated!

Al: Allah has shown us the way!

Pinch me - I'm dreaming!!!

[Linker3000]

Slashdot EeziPost (TM) MK 1.0.001 (beta) TRIFECTA SOUVENIR EDITION

#NB: For obvious reasons, the first option is ENABLED by default - remember to turn off if you are NOT responding to a dupe

[X] Another: [X] Dupe [ ] Slashvertisment [X] WTF [X] $editor is a dork [X] dupe trifecta is now in operation

[ ] Frist psot [ ] $link_to_GNAA [ ] $link_to_goatse [ ] $random_drivel

[ ] I Haven't RTFA, but... $random_opinionated_comment

[ ] Slashdotted already!. I bet their server runs on $topic_item too

[ ] Soul_sucking registration required

[ ] Mod Parent [ ] up [ ] Down

[ ] Fsck: [ ] SCO [ ] Micro$oft [ ] DMCA [ ] DRM [ ] MPAA [ ] RIAA [ ] Google [ ] Bush [ ] You all

[ ] I for one welcome our new $topic_item overlords

[ ] Imagine a beowulf cluster of those

[ ] In Soviet Russia, $topic_item owns you!

[X] Meh!

[ ] You must be new here!

[ ] Netcraft confirms $topic_item is: [ ] dead [ ] dying

[ ] But have the inventors thought of what will happen if $random_amateur_insight

[ ] Once again the USA is clamping down on my [ ] Amendment rights.

[ ] You insensitive clod

[ ] But people who download music from P2P networks are more likely to buy the
album

[ ] Cue DVD Jon-type crack in 3..2..1

[ ] Torrent, anyone?

[ ] Here's a link to a patch: $random_linux_distro_url

[ ] "Yeah, but does it run Linux?"; if($summary has 'linux') add "Oh, wait..."

[ ] Profit!!

[ ] Tinfoil hat at the ready

[ ] Still no cure for cancer

[ ] "()*%£^" No Carrier

pry my pgp from my dead hands

[Ankou]

I'll say it again, there already exists a backdoor, its called a warrant. Issue me one, and I'll be happy to let them listen. Until then you aint getting my keys. What happened to my presumed innocence?

Re:Great...

[tez_h]

1984 esque society.

The word is 'Orwellian'.

-Tez

We don't need no encryption

[Lost Penguin]

"trusted computing" will put a keystroke logger in every BIOS!

Really, they can go in your house when you are not at home and leave no sign they were there, without any reason or warrant ("Patriot" Act)
Do you really think they will not leave a key stroke logger?

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

[demachina]

Well its a subject for heated debate whether the constitution does assure you a right to privacy and what the bounds of that right are. When telephones came in to common use in the early twentieth century it was routine for the police to listen in on suspected criminals or maybe anyone they wanted to find some dirt on.

The first Supreme Court case tested wire taps in 1928 in fact found in favor of wire tapping, because ... wait for it ... the police were not entering the persons home so they were not invading the privacy of their home. Here is a good link on the history of the right to privacy.

Here is a particularly important part on wire tapping. Justice Louis D. Brandeis was writing in the dissent in Olmstead v. United States (1928). His view would ultimately prevail years later and is now in grievous danger of being overturned again by a rising tide of Fascism in the U.S. :

"Whenever a telephone line is tapped, the privacy of the persons at both ends of the line is invaded, and all conversations between them on any subject, and although proper, confidential, and privileged, may be overheard. . . .
The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure, and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the one most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment."

Its important to read this stuff these days. The right to privacy was the cornerstone of the confirmation hearing of our new Chief Justice Roberts, names like Olmstead and Griswold. There is a suspicion Judge Roberts appointment is designed to overturn all the cases affirming right to privacy, a right to not have your phone tapped, a right to abortions, a right to access birth control.

Religious fundamentalists banned birth control in Connecticut in the 19th century. When this law was challenged in 1965 in Griswold .vs. Connecticut it laid the foundation for much of our modern right to privacy, in this case it was an individuals right to practice birth control without state intervention. This evolved in to the right to an abortion in Roe v Wade.

J. Edgar Hoover used wire taps and his control of the FBI to accumulate vast amounts of dirt on anyone and everyone, and insured he held an iron grip on the helm of the FBI and in fact the U.S. in general for decades. No one would challenge him because he had dirt on everyone. He was the ultimate defiler of the right to privacy. With modern techology and the collapse of our right to privacy thanks to fear mongering politicians the potential is great for the rise of new J. Edgars who are even more powerful and more dangerous. A leading candidate is George W's new National Intelligen Director, John Negroponte. He doesn't control the FBI he controls the CIA, the NSA and every spying resource the U.S. has now. Negroponte was infamous for supporting right wing death squads in Central America that did Fascism proud.

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.

You have wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you are half right... when a country puts two or more words like that (people's, republic) in their name, you know its a fucked up country. Take the "People's Republic of China", and the "Democratic Republic of the Congo"... but if you really want it, you have to add another word to make it three, like the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Not to be out done, why not four?

I propose: "The People's Unified Democratic Republican Co-Prosperity Realm of America"

Tinfoil hat....

[Coldglow]

No more tinfoil hats... Only paper hats, it is for national security!!!!!!!!!

consider the source

[idlake]

If you have followed him, you'll see that to Declan McCullagh, anything the government does is wrong; that's just his view of the world.

So far, there is not even the slightest indication that the FCC either has the authority or the ability of regulating what you do on your PC. So, while the FCC may really intend something stupid with this rule, it probably doesn't matter; they might as well try to make and enforce FCC regulations against radio emissions from the sun.

Re:Yet another wet-dream...

[Ablar]

> please. i know or have known lots of cops, and not one fits your mold.

I don't believe anyone here is saying that most or even many cops would abuse this. The problem is that we're also enabling those few who _will_ be abusing this power.

But what if you don't obey?

[R3d M3rcury]

Okay, so here's what I'm wondering.

Suppose I'm an evil person intent on doing evil things and I decide to communicate with my evil minions around the country using some sort of encrypted VOIP-type of thing that I had one of my evil minions put together.

Suppose further that the US Government gets wind of one of my nefarious schemes, goes to the appropriate judge, and gets a warrant to tap my Internet connection. They then discover that I'm using this encrypted VOIP thing.

What are they gonna do? Arrest me? On what charge? Using a service which is not "subject to the needs of law enforcement"? What's the penalty for that?

Are they going to drop me a note saying, "Hey, we can't understand what you're sending. Stop doing that."? Do they have the ISPs shut off the ports? What if I'm using port 80? Does the ISP drop me as a customer? Will there be some sort of federal "Do not let this guy use the Internet" list that ISPs have to check? What about "public" places, like Internet Cafes?

This is what I don't understand. What is "subject to the needs of law enforcement"? Can the Government decide that I don't need to use a service? If so, how do they block it? Again, if I assemble it myself, how will the government block it unless they stumble across it during an investigation? And if they block it afterwards, don't they think I'll suspect something?

This sounds like the FCC is trying to play both sides of the street. Yes, you can use whatever service you like, unless the cops don't like it. If they don't like it, something may or may not happen to you.

No Taxation without--er, sort of

[cnerd2025]

Remember when they teach you that "we hold these truths to be self-evident" and that "endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."? They often seem to neglect the part about dissolving political bonds in favor of new ones or the fact that the ruler derives his or her power from the consent of the governed. I'm all against "terrorists", but how about we take some real action against them instead of stupid shit, like keeping VoIP from using encryption. Us law-abiding citizens will have to and terrorists will go on encrypting it. Who the hell would ever know? They would likely use an encryption scheme above the NSA threshold, so it would look more like garbage data than a meaningful phone conversation. Obviously DC has taken the name "Washington" and tarnished it by throwing it in the mud. It was a mistake to name the capital city after him; almost everything the government does is in direct opposition to what George Washington personally and politically believed in. Balance of powers has become blurred (the FCC and other executive bureaus can arbitrarily impose jurisdiction without Congressional consent.) I think everything that America stands for is being torn down and propaganda is making it happen. The government is engaging in terror just as much as radical islamists and other terrorists. All of this shit about "protecting America" is ineffective and futile. You can't preemptively stop terror. You can only deter it or freeze it. Foreignly the US has done an excellent job at this: Saudi is cooperating with us, Libya is growing balls, Iran now knows we have a backbone, Lebanon and Syria are finally coming to some resolution. What the government is doing internally is destroying America. These acts such as PATRIOT Act and the Wire Tap act are tantamount to the Alien and Sedition acts.

Re:Yet another wet-dream...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the problem is the minority of cops who are willing to exercise their power for their own ends, not to "lock up the criminals" (by the way, isn't it the court's job to decide who's a criminal, not the cops?)

The minority I'm thinking of, and I'm sure there is at least one cop who fits this description (Oh, I donno, J Edgar Hoover comes to mind for some reason) will take any action they wish to. If the action is illegal, at least we can kick them in the ass when we find out. If there's no limit on what can be snooped, then there's nothing to do when abuses occur.

The whole point of our system of government is that the people are superior to the government. Not that the police have whatever power they want to have, and everyone they come in contact with must bow down to them.

It doesn't matter if 99% of the cops are good. The other 1% will spoil it for them.

I think it's the bad cops you should be pissed at, not the people who don't want to give the government power over us which can be so easily abused. I'm glad you know a lot of cops, but you don't know them all.

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.

WHY SO COMPLICATED?

[hurfy]

If my kids string two cans together do they have to provide a third for any FBI agents nearby?

Perhaps i should get an extra baby monitor for the FBI office, he seems to be sending me coded messages :)

If they really need a tap can't they just break in and put a bug in the handset or something? It wouldn't seem to matter what protocol it uses then. Don't they have like a 99+% chance of approval for a warrent if they ask? Of course i guess it would be much easier to have someone else do the legwork and listen to the tape at their convenience.

Why would the REALLY bad guys care if their comm program is approved? Make this a capital offense maybe so they would rather be busted for bombmaking?

The boys in DC bored this week or what?

Can you say: Power Trip?

Doesn't anybody see...

[Kjella]

...that there is real legitimate problem here if the police after recieving the proper warrants, can't understand anything because it's all encrypted?

What can you do:
1) Completely prevent the police from listening in on communication, which would probably have severe consequences for law enforcement?
2) Demand that users hand over their own encryption keys, thus informing them that they are under surveilance?
3) Demand that software adds a backdoor for police, with all the problems of jurisdiction and possiblities of abuse?
4) Demand that software adds a backdoor for themselves, so they can hand it over to the police? Even bigger possibilities for abuse.
5) Some sort of two-part system where session keys are kept in escrow. For example the police has the decryption key, the company the encrypted keys. Requires some for for central server to hodl the keys.
6) Outlaw encryption. Read: Impossible.

3), 4) and 5) don't work with OSS solutions. 5) doesn't work with a completely decentralized structure, maybe something like Skype can use it negotiating keys but not with software connecting peers directly. Also, this isn't new to VoIP, they have just a big problem finding out if someone trades kiddie porn over SFTP as they do with someone talking to their drug dealer using VoIP.

Kjella

Re:Yet another wet-dream...

[arkanes]

I know lots of cops too and they're mostly nice enough people. They tend to be a bit rednecky.

Thats not generally a flaw in most people, but the prejudices involved do affect they way they do thier job.

However, the real question is, do you know or have known lots of cops *in a professional capacity"? Because let me tell you, the way cops act when they're "on the job" is totally different from what they'll do hanging out at a bar. Especially when they think you're a criminal. Cops tend to trust thier gut feeling about this sort of thing, which is notoriously unreliable, and since oversight of police is pretty much non existant except in major cases, people just let stuff like illegal or unfounded stops or searches go. Insisting on your rights to a cop who stops you, by the way, is a great way to spend a night in jail. I don't think cops are neccesarily bad people, but they are human, and the circumstances of the job lend themselves to that sort of petty powermongering, just like DMV clerks. Which is why we need extensive oversight, more money and support, including therapy, for officers, and systemic work to try to break up the club atmosphere that forms that "blue wall". The military has exactly the same problem, but it doesn't affect citizens as much because the military isn't used as a policing force very often. Of course, if current trends continue, that may change. And can I take an aside to point out how ridiculous that someone calling themselves a conservative is even *thinking* about having the military take a larger roll in civilian affairs?

Which is from the totalitarian regime?

[paiute]

"The exercise by citizens ... of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state"

"consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement"

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

[Qzukk]

I really don't see how a person owns the eletrons on a line once it leaves his or her property.

Do I stop owning the atoms in a piece of paper when the mail carrier picks it up? Does ownership have any bearing on the expected privacy of the content? Why should my message be any different whether I pay a mail carrier to pick it up and carry it to its destination, or a phone company, or an ISP?

Re:Yet another wet-dream...

[DavidTC]

No.

What you say is exactly true, if for 'criminals', you say 'bad people'. Cops don't want to put normal people away.

However, it's who they think are 'bad people'. Chinamen. Hippies. The Irish. Unionists. Blacks. Mormons. Homosexuals.

I've deliberately listed people that the cops used to go after, instead of modern people. But rest assured they still do the same thing.

Luckily, given enough laws, everyone is breaking the law, and cops can choose to go after 'bad people', secure in the knowledge those people are criminals. This is what is called a 'police state'.

The 'good' people will get ignored, maybe get a warning every so often, and of course the laws will be rigged so the laws they like to break are not that bad (1), or can be twisted into not being that bad by the police, as long as they don't interfere with the ability of the police to come down on 'bad people'.

I'm not saying this POV is actually a bad thing. There are plenty of cops where 'bad people'=='people who hurt other people', and those people make good cops. There also, however, plenty whose idea of 'bad people' is a bit more...iffy.

1) This works really well when there is a cultural gap between 'good people' and 'bad people'. For example, using different kinds of drugs, or in different ways. Or, as Anatole France put it, the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Oh, the horror!

[timothy]

"[U]sing encryption with VoIP can prevent the FBI from implementing wire taps."

So ... what's the downside?

Oh, right: the elusive hope of catching the very stupidest of criminals. That's clearly worth subverting personal privacy and autonomy for -- especially since the world of communication possibilities has been successfully finished, and no more room for experimentation or change exists.

timothy

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

[DavidTC]

The Constitutional Party manages to misrepresent not only the Constitution, but also the Bible. And I don't mean in the traditional way of misrepresenting the Bible, they've invented new and exciting things it must mean.

Who knows what 'Biblical common-law foundations' they've invented. Common law foundations came from the Roman Empire and England, with maybe a little Athens. There's not even such thing as a jury trial in the Bible.

It's the really screwed up thinking of 'Being a Christian is patriotic' and 'God wants you to support the US', the most convolted mixing of religion and politics you'll ever see. They are the party the Republicans are pretending to be to religious people.

They tend to attract the sort of people who think that if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for the rest of the world, and who will press a Bible in your hand and tell you to read it, and can quote a hundred verses, but can't actually explain any of the context or any of the meaning. (Quick test: Ask them who a 'Samaritan' is in the Bible. See if they understand one of the most important stories.)

Re:Who Needs Encryption?

[DavidTC]

Hell, the government doesn't even have enough people who speak Farsi and Aramaic.

Forget Elvish, you could probably throw them by speaking in French or Australian.

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

[demachina]

"I'm just curious, how are you defining "Fascism?""

Authoritarian capitalism, police state, no due process, dominated by one party which suffocates all opposition. It maintains a facade of capitalism which differentiates it from Communism and authoritarian socialism. However rather than free markets the government and the party dominates all aspects of economic life that matter, and in particular intervene in economic affairs whenever it benefits and enriches favored party members.

A penchant for militarism and aggressive warfare to gain its objectives. Massive investment in armaments and the willingness to use them to dominate its allies and enemies alike.

Fear mongering to make the population pliant to manipulation and control by the party. It was a classic technique perfected in Nazi Germany. The Nazi's version of 9/11 was the Reichstag fire. Its likely the Nazi's burned it but they framed a naked, mentally ill communist for it, and used it as justification for seizing power in face of an imminent "threat" form the Communists and the Jews.

Fascist states are defined by being rabidly anticommunist, which has defined the U.S. for the last century. In the 1930's many Americans were very supportive of Nazi Germany because both Germany and the U.S. were staunchly anti Soviet. George W.'s grandfather Prescott was the U.S. banker for the Thyssen family, one of Germany's richest which helped bankroll Hitlers rise to power. His Union Banking assets were seized for trading with the enemy when the U.S. declared war. Most of the 3rd world dictators we suppored in the twentieth century were Fascist regimes too, they were people we installed who were willing to kill socialist and communists indiscriminately. This gets back to Negropontes role in building right wing death squads in Central America as the U.S. waged a secret war against Socialism in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala.

The U.S. is a somewhat benign form of Fascism, it does maintain a pretense of free elections but they are looking less free every iteration. If the Republican's retain their grip on power in 2006 and certainly by 2008 by suckering the electorate, exploiting a crisis(real or fabricated), rigging elections I don't think there will be much doubt this will be a Fascist state for a long time. One can only hope that Americans are becoming sufficiently disgusted with one party rule that they throw the Republicans out of a branch or two. If they don't basic liberties in this country are in real peril. I don't want the Democrats to have power either, since they are barely distinguishable for Republicans these days, a nice grid lock is desirable at present when both options are horrendously bad. The Republicans have engaged in such an effective and savage propaganda campaign against the Dems I'm not sure the Dems will gain control of anything. If the Republicans have a few more years to pack the courts that will finish the process of seizing power.

Nice unverifiable electronic voting will be a great tool for maintaining the pretense of free elections when they are in fact rigged.

The U.S. does still have due process most of the time but Little George has managed to set precedent for completely eviscerating it with Jose Padilla among others. If you don't have due process all the time for all citizens you don't really have it at all. Right now we only have it when its convenient for the White House and until they fabricate a terrorism charge against you which they apparently never have to prove in court.

The U.S. is building an all powerful combined police force, domestic, and foreign spying capacity that would be the envy of the Gestapo or KGB, under John Negroponte, a right wing Machiavellian if ever there was one. Imagine if the Gestapo only had computers and spy satellites.

The U.S. is, through the rendition program, seizing people at will anywhere on the globe, and sending them in to torture chambers around the globe. Sure sounds a lot like the Gestapo to me, except t

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

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

There's not even such thing as a jury trial in the Bible.

However, ownership of slaves is A-OK with Yaweh. Just don't go killin' 'em indiscriminately.

And, go look it up if you don't believe me, Yaweh is of such high moral character, he once sicced bears on 42 children, killing them, because they made fun of some bald guy's head

Nice, moral guy, this Yaweh. (Note: Every time you see THE LORD in tiny print in the Bible, that's refering to "YHWH" in the original text, said translators being afraid to translate the actual name of God, presumably because of some ancient superstitious notion about invoking someone's "true name" giving you some inappropriate power over them.)