Court Battle Over Internet Calls

koweja writes "The federal appeals court has is hearing a petition to overturn an FCC rule that extends current wire-tapping laws to cover VoIP calls. The petition comes from various privacy advocacy groups, including the Center for Democracy and Technology. Aside from the obvious privacy issues, the rule requires that providers use equipment that allows wiretaps, which would require many companies to "upgrade" in order to comply."

Comments

But why...

[confusion]

...should those using VOIP be exempt from the abuses of governmental powers that the rest of us must endure?

Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/

Re:But why...

[ornil]

Don't laugh, it's a good question. If the wiretapping law is good it should apply to all. If it's bad, go lobby and vote to change it. Making exception for VOIP makes no sense.

Re:But why...

[projectVORTEX]

Part of the problem, as I have been reading about it, isn't so much the wiretapping law but a particular part of the law. The part of the law in question would require ALL VOIP operators to completely rewire their systems in order to be in compliance with the law. There are easier ways to go about doing this, but those ways were not addressed in the law. Now, as a Vonage customer, I would hate for Vonage to have to send me the bill so they are in compliance with FCC wiretapping regulations. On the other end of the spectrum, there is another issue at hand. This quote is taken from a Yahoo News article on the same subject: "By adopting the VoIP wiretapping rule, the FCC backtracked on an earlier decision to treat computer-to-computer VoIP much like it treats other Internet-related communication, as an unregulated information service, the groups said. The FCC overstepped limits in the CALEA law exempting information services, and federal law enforcement agencies have not shown they need additional help to intercept online communications, said John Morris, staff counsel for the CDT." (Taken from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20051025/tc_pcworl d/123204) There you have it. In fact, the Yahoo article puts things in a better light than the CNN article does, because the Yahoo article also mentions potential problems down the line with integration of wiretapping capabilities into what is essentially IP technology.

Skype

[mboverload]

With a system like Skype, which uses P2P for calls, how would this work?

I'm kind of ok with wiretapping, just as long as there ISN'T A BACKDOOR. I don't care what they say, a backdoor into anything is a bad idea.

Re:Skype

[Anonymous Coward]

skype would need to route all data through skype servers
in order to satisfy (from what i understand) the requirement
that two parties can't detect when they're being tapped
(i.e. if calls went P2P when not tapped, but through skype
when tapped, you'd be able to tell).

that is, all media would have to go through skype servers.

Re:Skype

[chill]

IIRC, the wiretap provisions only apply to VoIP POTS interconnects. Straight VoIP VoIP isn't covered by this, only where they interact with the regular phone system. Thus Skype Skype isn't covered, but SkypeOut *IS*.

None-the-less, odd are the courts will rule the FCC doesn't have the authority to enforce this. Even the FCC members who voted for this stated that it was on some convoluted, shakey logic.

  -Charles

Re:Skype

[Wesley Felter]

The rule is that if any part of the system (Skype) touches the PSTN, then every call (e.g. Skype-to-Skype) must be tappable. It sounds like this would totally sabotage Skype, FWD, Gizmo, SIPPhone, etc.

What good does it really do?

[bchernicoff]

After all, I could easily write an encrypted P2P voice chat program.
I'm sure they already exist...

Re:What good does it really do?

[mboverload]

Encrypted P2P VOIP you say?

It's called Skype. Welcome to The Future.

Re:What good does it really do?

[temojen]

Skype is closed source, requires a central server, and touches the PSTN. The combination of these make it easy and legal to include the wiretapping provisions.

(hint for a real solution: IPSec, H.323)

Same issues North and South of the border

[Funakoshi]

Canada has run into a similar issue with our government's demand for greater wiretaps for phone, email and Internet communications. (From a few weeks ago.)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew s/20051011/wiretapping_051011/20051011?hub=TopStor ies

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the public debate forum over "our nation's safety and security," or privacy.

Oh beaurocrats, you so crazy

[JustADude]

I feel safer already. Bob Terrorist can send coded messages just about any way he wants to get around this (the apocryphal "coded eBay auction" stories, PGP or any number of other encryption standards, smoke signals, fucking microfiche under a stamp), but the feds can listen to mom swapping corn muffin recipes. Anyone else get the feeling the only "terrorists" caught this way will be the ones too stupid to have really caused any damage to begin with?

The world is once again safe for democracy.

Cheers.

They created it, now they have to deal with it

[CastrTroy]

The feds created the internet, and now they have to deal with the implications. They aren't happy about it. Sure, they could use wiretapping on known VOIP services, but what's to stop someone from programming their own, using strong encryption. Sending sound packets over a network isn't that hard, encrypting them is also easy. Maybe you wouldn't have a super robust network, but so long as the person on the other end is getting the message, then that should be OK. Why aren't more criminals using PGP encrypted email? It seems like at this point it would be pretty obvious to them that they get caught when stuff isn't encrypted.

Re:They created it, now they have to deal with it

[bluelip]

You're very correct. (If it possible to more correct than just normally correct)

VOIP can be tunnled to that it loooks like any other encrypted traffic. Are the feds going to start block :443 traffic because I may be tunneling my weekly call to my mom in the traffic?

I work for a state agencey. I've spent the betterm part of days explainging to the higher ups what a certain technology can do and what it can't.

Has anyone been pondering a way to provide politicians w/ this infornmation?

I'm not trying to flame the gov't, just trying to find a way to get them unbiased technoligically corrext info.

I realize that headlines sell and flinging mud wins campaigns. I'm probably too disillusioned to think can't be corrected.

Any ideas out there?

Re:They created it, now they have to deal with it

[Richard_at_work]

VOIP can be tunnled to that it loooks like any other encrypted traffic. Are the feds going to start block :443 traffic because I may be tunneling my weekly call to my mom in the traffic?

And thats where traffic analysis comes in. Port 443 traffic usually consists of a lot of individual connections that remain open for a few seconds at most, with fairly significant breaks between page fetches. When your encypted VoIP session uses that port, its going to be either one continuous connection, or a lot of connections over a period of time with no break - traffic analysis would show that your connections dont match the usual makeup that 443 traffic generates.

Port 22 for SSH would be a better bet, but its not as widespread as 443 and the data rate is rather low on average, so again it would probably be fairly easy to discern when its being used for alternative reasons. I can already tell when something is transferred over scp or X11 forwarding over ssh, even if I cant tell what it is.

Im not saying that its easy or whatever, but dont kid yourself that you can just switch ports and hide amongst the traffic because you can tell a lot from the traffic itself. A HELL of a lot of information was descerned from Soviet radio broadcasts to spies in the western world between 1945 and 1970, even tho those broadcasts were encrypted - the traffic groups told MI5 exactly what type of spy the traffic was for (GRU, KGB, singleton etc) and how many other spies he was running. MI5 was able to estimate that tehre was 400 spies active in the UK during the 1950s that hadnt been discovered previously, and that figure was later confirmed by a defector.

I have already completed this entire thread

[BOOTSTRAPS]

I have finished this thread for you:

>I hate the man. (Score: 5, Insightful)
>>Yea but America always does this, and I don't like America. (Score:4, Interesting)
>The Government is controlling too much stuff (Score: 4, Interesting)
>>We can just have some private industry do it for us, then. (Score: 5, Insightful)
>>>Why should we put up with this? (Score: 4, Interesting)
>>>>I like to use my voip (Score 5, Interesting)
>>>>>I can't wait to pay more taxes (Score: 4, Funny)
>>>>>>I hate GEORGE BUSH (Score: -1, Troll)
>>>>>>>Tehy will never stop me from making free calls. (Score: 1, Redundant)
>I hate microsoft (Score: 1, Off-Topic)
>I am a bad person (Score: 3, Interesting)

_29 replies_ below your current threshold

Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Im the senior architect for a major VoIP provider. Supporting Lawful intercept is just like e911, its trivial to do. Its how well you do it that makes it hard. Good networks (in terms of business logic, closely comparable with pstn networks etc) will accept calls at an edge device, and then proxy them through their network. This however has a cost as transporting sip+rtp == bandwidth. In this scenario, wiretapping is really really easy, but it has a cost associated with it. Skype on the other hand basically steals, by comparison, its bandwidth and does end-to-end connections. In essence its a fancy directory service with interconnects to the pstn. This has a lot of other implications from 911 to privacy. Some are good. Eg on skype no one working at skype can tap your calls (unless they include it in their soft client, and havnt done so yet to my knowledge). However, every isp inbetween can, with varying degrees of difficulty (encryption et all). The question comes down to, who do you trust to do fair and balanced intercept, because its going to happen somewhere. Is it your isp under supeona, or is it the voip carrier who does it all day long. /. 'rs often complain about cease and decist letters, next thing it'll be wiretap letters and they'll comply just as fast. So be careful what you wish for. This society will not give up the ability to combat crime through selective, targeted, electronic monitoring. In fact in the last few years with commander kuku bananas in charge theyve made it even more prevailent. The fact of the matter is skype got kicked outta china, because their tech doesnt support lawful intercept, while others are getting licensed. Something for nothing just isnt gonna happen for the masses in telecom, theres too many special interest groups. You'll see gun control first; mark my words. If the VoIP community fights lawful intercept, E-911, privacy laws et all, and the internet community supports them. The special interests will do in the us as they have done in china, and just firewall the whole freakin country. Dont think it can't/wont happen here.

upgrade

[akhomerun]

i'm thinking about the upgrades you would need to do to enable your VoIP phone to be wiretapped. wouldn't that require you to basically set up a wiretap yourself?

i'm glad that the appeal is being pushed through, because when new communications standards are made, new rules for them need to be made. you can't recycle postage rules for email, just like you can't recycle telephone rules for broadband phones. you have to make new ones. there shouldn't be a rule that governs a new standard until our politicians figure out what the standard actually does.

No Problem, I'll Just Encrypt It!

[mr_stinky_britches]

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68306, 00.html
wired has a good article on an open source project for an encrypted voip application.
let's see them wiretap that ;)

Re:What good / a sample conversation

[radiotyler]

habib_freedom_hater01> aziz, are you ready lol
sxy_bch_1955> hi ;) @}-'-`---
habib_freedom_hater01> AZIZ!!! stop goofin we must destroy teh invidels
sxy_bch_1955> ROFLMAO! OMG habib, d00d, this is so l33ts
habib_freedom_hater01> tahts it aziz im goin to call u
sxy_bch_1955> LOL u cant tehy tapped r phone! we only use chat now
habib_freedom_hater01> roxors!
sxy_bch_1955> u set us up teh bomb
habib_freedom_hater01> move zig!
sxy_bch_1955> LOL

Not true.

[Anonymous Coward]

route all data through skype servers

Not true. The secret services can already tap your internet packets. What they need is Skype providing the key to your P2P encryption.

Re:I doubt encryption is the answer

[pclminion]

Considering the amount of overhead that would be required to encrypt and decrypt a constant data stream such as VoIP, it seems to me that you'd have pretty bad performance problems.

Then you are ignorant. Assuming a bit rate of 32 kbps (which is generous for voice), that's 4 kilobytes of data per second that need to be encrypted.

Oh woe is me, where oh where am I going to find an encryption algorithm that can encrypt a mighty 4 kilobytes per second? I mean sheesh, it only has a quarter of a millisecond per byte! Hell, at today's CPU speeds we'll have to encrypt a byte using fewer than half a million instructions! God, it just seems impossible!

A quick read between the lines

[laughingcoyote]

Here's the major problem I see here. For the FBI to wiretap, they must have probable cause and a warrant. With such probable cause/warrant, they can do any number of things, from subpoenaing the suspect's ISP to placing surveillance devices right in the suspect's house. They've already got ways to eavesdrop if they follow the procedures they're required to follow.

Now, if the FBI had this wiretap authority, they could in effect tap any call, anytime. They would still in theory be required to get a warrant in order to use the stuff in court, but they'd have the switch to flip on. And there's been a push in recent years by you-know-who to allow secret evidence in court proceedings that the suspect gets no opportunity to even view, let alone challenge.

So, either law enforcement wants to be lazy, or they want an easier way to do an end-run around the rules. Neither way is a comforting thought to me.

Re:A quick read between the lines

[mcrbids]

Here's the major problem I see here. For the FBI to wiretap, they must have probable cause and a warrant.

Uh, remember the (so-called) PATRIOT act? All that law enforcement needs to do is claim that you might be a terrorist and wiretap laws go out the window. Along with them, your privacy. They don't need to substantiate their "might be a terrorist" in any way, nor do they have to make that claim before doing the wiretap.

It's just fucking hideous. Terrorists attack, and the US Govt immediately turns around and hands our defeat to the terrorists. If the terrorists want to attack our freedoms, then they have already had some pretty major successes!

(and this is one of those few times where a little swearing is very appropriate)

Because 9-11 could have been prevented with this

[ShatteredDream]

The federal government has always failed to prevent things like this for two reasons: bureaucratic bullshit like fiefdoms in the middle of the CIA and FBI that don't like each other and petty politics. For the last 15 years the CIA lost most of its overseas operational assets, especially in its special operations commando units. These were the people who quietly "got the job done" behind a building with a silencer-equipped pistol or high-powered rifle. You never heard of it happening, except when it was abused like in Latin America.

Here's a dirty little fact for the neoconservatives and the Bushitler wants to annihilate all non-born again Christians lunies. You cannot combine anti-terrorism units with law enforcement and you cannot expect things to be clean regardless of the solution. Yes, if we let the CIA quietly murder these terrorists without judicial oversight it could be abused. But it's a lesser evil than relying on the bumbling law enforcement apparatus in this country to do its job. The FBI spends as much time doing PR and lobbying as it does on enforcing the law; we really need to get a high barrier between a group like the CIA and everybody else and let that agency do its job in secrecy.

Yes, let people outside the chain of command know what is happening, but don't let the spooks work with law enforcement unless the police are operating in a purely, unequivocably subordinate position so that they cannot lean on the spooks for more power and resources. What concerns me is precisely this beefing up of John Q. Cop's police powers, not the CIA and others being able to discretely beat up and kill people who want to rape, pillage and murder civilians of ANY nationality. I'd have no problem with the CIA torturing the hell out of, then executing some scumbag terrorist in Afghanistan or Iraq like Zarqawi who vascillates between blowing up our soldiers and innocent women and children.

This stuff isn't going to get the job done, unless the job is to create a more effective police state. The real section to fear isn't a strong intelligence apparatus, but a law enforcement one whose resources and powers are almost instinguishable from the spooks. The spooks have, when allowed to do their job, much more to worry about than domestic issues. Be very afraid of this and increased efforts to force them to work together, especially when the FBI are jockying for the CIA's foreign intelligence role and the CIA wants to keep its turf. Nothing good can come out of it, and the most probable motive for making the police so powerful is precisely to squash domestic trouble and not of the terrorist variety.

Think RICO and Operation Rescue if you need a starting point on how these special police powers tend to show their true, ugly purpose once they're firmly established in the law so that no lawyer can imagine living without them to "protect us."

Why we live in Ameriaca

[max born]

Justice Department spokesman Paul Bresson says court-authorized electronic surveillance is a critical law enforcement tool. "As communications technologies develop, we must ensure that such progress does not come at the expense of our nation's safety and security," he said.

You know, I hate to use such a corny mantra that if we allow this then the terrrorists have won. But really, this is exactly what's going on here. Look at the last words in the quote: safety and security

I can't help but think it's not really about that at all. The Feds, having been unable to connect the dots of 911 now want to make up for lost time with the ability to monitor every Internet conversation and what they don't realize is this will have no effect on organizations like al Qeada.

Are you aware?

[horacerumpole]

Are you aware that backdoors in form of boxes connected to all exchanges already exists in practically every country in the world?

I used to work for a subsidary of Comverse (Nasdaq:CMVT) which was wholly built around providing the wiretapping boxes to law enforcement agencies around the world (complete with automatic speaker recognition, automatic voice to text, data analysis (i.e. extracting that HTML page out of anything from radio modems to ATM VC's and beyond), voice enhancements, and lots of other neat stuff).

The point I'm trying to pass is that all approved telephone exchanges in the world already have provisions to allow law enforement agencies connect wiretapping devices to them already, and this ruling, as far as I follow (which I admit isn't much) just extend this state of affairs to a new technology.

I still don't see how Skype and its ilks can comply to this (I don't know if they will be requires, that's a parallel thread), given that the voice bits may travel directly between the two talking parties or through random intermediates.

Vonage

[Mister Gas Fireplace]

I have Vonage so I guess I can continue my marijuana growing operation. Just kidding.

Privacy is dead

[Gnuontz]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Ben Franklin... Oh, to be worthy of our forefathers.

Check out Pulver.com

[jesup]

Correct. The ruling also covers any broadband over 200Kbps separately - i.e. they can force your ISP to tap your connection. The act really is about forcing the ISPs to install equipment to make it EASY to tap by flipping a switch electronically - they already had the power to order a tap; it's just that it might be hard/slow/impossible for the ISP to comply. And yes, this means there's a HUGE gaping hole waiting for someone to exploit. Knowing the capability is there is 1/2 the battle of accessing it, and CALEA spells out a lot of specifics about the interface.

This lawsuit is about the part of the ruling that states that in addition to the ISP, any VoIP supplier who has any connection (even through a 3rd party!) to a PSTN gateway must provide the same ease-of-tapping under CALEA for ALL calls. Not just calls going to/from the PSTN, ALL calls.

Colleges are suing as well (separately), over the up to 7 or more BILLION dollars to re-architect and rebuild their campus networks to support this. The original CALEA was aimed at telephone companies; gave them years to comply; and reimbursed them for their expenses. None of that here.

This means Skype (unless they drop SkypeOut/SkypeIn). Ditto Vonage, sipphone, etc. I think FWD might be ok since it's IP-2-IP only.

Check out http://pulver.com/ and Pulver's blog on this http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/003241.html.

Re:Check out Pulver.com

[chill]

Thinking about it, this may be a *good* thing. Soon, damn near everything will be encrypted traffic. No, I don't mean Skype and its proprietary stuff. I mean tunnel EVERYTHING thru TLS/SSL. Let 'em tap that and have a blast.

  -Charles

Re:Check out Pulver.com

[gstoddart]

Thinking about it, this may be a *good* thing. Soon, damn near everything will be encrypted traffic. No, I don't mean Skype and its proprietary stuff. I mean tunnel EVERYTHING thru TLS/SSL. Let 'em tap that and have a blast.

If they are insisting the ISPs pay thir own money to upgrade to more-easily tappable equipment, then when everyone encrypts everything, they will make it illegal to use crypto in the US for which they don't have the s3cr37 b4ckd00r.

Failure to comply with that will be a crime since you'd be preventing them from easily listening in on you.

It makes sense, as a wedge and an example

[Julian Morrison]

As a wedge: to break and finally remove the existing wiretapping laws. They should not exist, but voting is FAR too blunt an instrument to remove them. The best way to make a bad law go away is to break it.

As an example, VOIP is a pointer to a wider fact: communication is fungible, because bits are fungible. The only way to wiretap every conversation, is to wiretap every packet and datum on the inernet. Further, there are no longer any "marginal" loopholes. A loophole which can be automated, can be adopted wholesale and worldwide. Therefore, it becomes a binary choice: total Big Brother, or no Big Brother. Wiretapping was always a trade-off, and I would argue that technical progress has made it unacceptable.

Since 1895

[ducomputergeek]

Law enforcement have been wiretapping telephone and telegraph lines. They did so with the consent of the teleco companies and most people didn't even know the police did this. It wasn't until the 1930's that the The Federal Communications Act prohibitied wire-tapping, even for the government.

Even though the information could not be used in court, the FBI and other police agencies continued to wire tap suspects. Again, they couldn't use the evidence in court, but if the police just happen to know where the mob was going to preform a hit or bank robbery and the police just happened to be ready to catch them in the act....

FDR was the one that allowed the FBI & the Police to go before a judge get a warrent to tap a phone. Why? To stop Nazi Spies in WWII. How many Nazi spies and sabatures did the FBI actually nab during WWII? Actually I don't know the answer to that one.

There is an old book called Ease Droppers that gives some interesting insights into the early world wiretapping. Governments have been using ease dropping technology starting with the Romans. They will continue to demand and use it in to the future.