Slashdot Mirror


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?'"

8 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Read carefully... by Propagandhi · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I first read that headline I thought it said FCC Demands Universe Comply With Wiretap Law... Oddly, it didn't seem at all surprising.

  2. There is something fundamentally wrong here by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  3. Ex parte, friends. by fuzzy12345 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --

    Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
  4. Secure SSH Tunneling by AppleFever · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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/

  5. Re:Nice by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >>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.

  6. Re:Nice by timmyf2371 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Sorry to break it to you, but you might want to read up on the Regulatory of Investgatory Powers Bill.

    In summary, the Government can "request" your password/encryption key at any time. Failure to hand it over, or even to disclose to anyone that you have been "asked" is a criminal offence punishable by jailtime. Oh, and a bunch of other goodies which totally make a mockery of our justice system and civil rights.

    --

    Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
  7. real criminals use prepaid.. not land lines... by User+956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?)

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  8. Re:Nice by markh1967 · · Score: 4, Informative
    and a handgun ban are pretty bad.

    When it comes to guns the UK population in general has a completely different attitude to than the US. The ban on firearms has practicly the complete support of politicians and the public; there is no gun lobby and it's a non-issue politicly. It could be seen as a reduction in civil rights if people in the UK wanted to own firearms but weren't allowed to but, as things stand, it's universally regarded as a good law. My local shop sells some gun magazines but, tellingly, they store them on the top shelf with the pornography.

    --
    Input error. Replace user and press any key to continue.