FCC Demands Universities Comply With Wiretap Law

tabdelgawad writes "The New York Times reports that the FCC is requiring universities to upgrade their online systems to comply with the 1994 wiretap law, which would make it easier for law enforcement to monitor communications online. The universities are not objecting on civil rights grounds (the law requires a court order before monitoring), but on cost grounds (upgrades may cost $7 billion). But with the technology infrastructure in place, what happens if congress decides to relax court order requirements in the future 'in their fight against criminals, terrorists and spies?'"

Comments

There is something fundamentally wrong here

[cgenman]

The federal government wants to make it more difficult for "criminals, terrorists and spies" by opening more backdoors in the system? Isn't that exactly the sort of thing that would make it easier for criminals, terrorists, and spies to get the info they need?

Ex parte, friends.

[fuzzy12345]

One thing you have to understand: Our legal system is normally an adversarial one. It isn't the judge's role to question one side's assertion, that's the other side's job. The judge is typically a neutral arbiter who doesn't ask hard questions, but relies on the self-interest of two warring parties to expose each other's weaknesses.

Wiretap orders are ex-parte. That is, only one party is present, and the judge, normally neutral, is expected to suddenly become a more active participant in the search for justice (like judges in civil/Napoleonic code type jurisdictions are), asking hard questions in place of the absent other party. Needless to say, a judge who normally acts in one paradigm (and indeed has no training in the other) isn't likely to suddenly change his stripes. Further, the police know full well which judges are likely to ask a question or two and which are likely to issue an order without question, so judge shopping inevitably occurs.

What percentage of search warrants and wiretap requests are denied? I challenge you to even find statistics about such things.

Parte on, dudes.

Secure SSH Tunneling

[AppleFever]

I already know that my university network isn't secure from fellow students, so basically what this does is allow law enforcement to sit on their asses from work and see what us kiddos are doing...when all they needed to do was walk their laptop over here and plug into the wall and they can do the same.

The solution is simple, and I do it myself. I SSH Tunnel all of my traffic out of my university to my off-site server so that I don't have to worry about an insecure network. I don't have any control over their policies and sniffing is very simple, even on a switched network.

When your ISP (the university) doesn't have your security in mind, then why should I trust them? And I have even more reason to now.

And I am not forgetting that the off-site server will soon have a similar back door made by my ISP. And when that happens, I might as well look for a server in NL.

_ _ _ _ _ _
Got Teeth?
http://www.doctorgallagher.com/

In A Dictatorship, The Dissident Is A Criminal

[tbuckner]

Let's face it, an inefficient law-enforcement apparatus is the only reason we still have certain freedoms at all. The closer the government can get to truly universal surveillance (total tapping capability, cameras everywhere, biometrics and data-mining methods to handle the firehose of data), the closer we come to a police state that cannot be resisted. That's why the feds are leaning on Skype and other VOIP providers; currently, Skype can't be tapped.

The most dangerous weapon a criminal can carry is a badge.

Re:Nice

[Pantero Blanco]

>>At least I live in Britain, which hasn't got all these civil rights reducing measures...quite yet. ...You're joking, right? Maybe you don't have this specific rights-reduction, but I'd say surveillance cameras all over the place and a handgun ban are pretty bad.

real criminals use prepaid.. not land lines...

[User 956]

In 2004, court-ordered wiretaps increased by 19%. This number doesn't even include terror-related wiretaps (which number an unheard of 1,754). It also doesn't include so-called "secret" wiretaps, allowed by Patriot.

The only groups these wiretaps hurt are the law-abiding citizens. The smart (read: dangerous) criminals have it all figured out-- Prepaid cell phones.

Pre-paid cell phones are literally disposable, one-use toys to the bad guys. You don't even need a fake ID, just cash, and not all that much at that. How can they tap your phone when you use a different phone for each call? The best they could do is tap all the pre-paid phones and listen to every conversation out there -- good luck with that! (wanna bet the NSA is big into voice recognition?)

Can Someone Please Tell Me ...

[constantnormal]

... why Homeland Defense is so eager to pursue the "criminals, terrorists and spies" lurking in this country, and so afraid to pursue them in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other nations where they obviously exist in great abundance?

Is is simply a case of looking for one's lost keys under the streetlight across the street, where you've not been, instead of down through the sewer grate you're standing over, just 'cause the light is better over there?

If they really want to start locally, I think they'd have more success bugging the phones and routers of the Congress and Executive branch, and posting the results on the web to further the cause of transparency and honesty in government. Nothing more would be required -- no investigations, no prosecutions, because we live in a nation with a free press and the freedom to vote our feeble minds.

Yes, let's bug every nook and cranny in the Capitol -- I believe we would root out a great many "criminals, terrorists and spies". It would not greatly surprise me to find Osama bin Laden living the good life in some Georgetown penthouse apartment.

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." -- Mark Twain

Re:Nice

[timmyf2371]

All CCTV does is serve to create a nanny state. The UK has more CCTV cameras in proportion to its size than any other nation in the world, yet we still get massive amounts of crime.

Then again, I don't believe in the notion that "if you've got nothing to hide, what have you to be afraid of". CCTV on private property is absolutely acceptable, provided it is managed in accordance with the Data Protection Act, but Government CCTV cameras - while acceptable in certain limited circumstances - merely serve to further the "Big Brother" notion.

At risk of taking the so-called slippery slope too far, imagine how much fun a dictator would have in the UK with all sorts of CCTV and other privacy-invading tools at his/her disposal.