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

In other words

[Boap]

Encryption is bad for people who want to spy on you

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

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'?

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!

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.