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

[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.

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?

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.

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)

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.