Slashdot Mirror
VOIP Tappings Under Scrutiny
dynooomite writes "CNN.com is reporting that Privacy groups have asked an appellate court to overturn an FCC rule that allows for phone-taps on VOIP calls. The privacy groups made their case saying taps would seriously hinder innovation on the web."
If I choose to encrypt my VOIP traffic using some sort of TLS, would such a ruling allow the FCC to force me to give them my encryption key?
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
The privacy groups made their case saying taps would seriously hinder innovation on the web.
Can we STOP using that word? This is getting worse than "Synergy"! If you have a point, try to quantify it in a reasonable manner. For example, "Tapping VOIP would drive up costs, thus resulting in slower adoption in an otherwise emerging market."
"Innovation" is nothing more than a weasel word that get bandied about everytime someone wants to argue against something, but has no argument prepared.
So, for the sake of the Children, everything Holy, and the nerves of all of us in the tech industry, please STOP USING THAT WORD as a defense. Thank you, have a nice day.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I don't like this special edition.
In the original, the FCC shot first.
"The unicode stuff in the latest version is working fabulously well. My russian mafia friends are ecstatic."
To "sit on a wire" anywhere you should need a probable cause and a warrant.
Anyone without this is simply hacking, which is illegal.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
Well, I'm just guessing, perhaps they don't mean to physically re-wire the networks but completely change the data flow.
For example, it's highly probable that for privacy concerns they specifically set everything up so nobody in the home office can listen in on any calls. It makes sense, as in case of a security audit they can say "we don't have the ability to eavesdrop, check our infrastructure if you doubt us."
With this ruling they may have to allow feds access to a hub or something that will allow them to intercept all traffic and listen in on both sides. Skype would be a real pain in the but as they supposedly encrypt their transmissions. They'd need access to everyone's keys.
But I'm just guessing here.
What does innovation have to do with it? Aren't our constitutional rights more important than if companies can make money off something?
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
That does seem a little overemphasized. I think the taps on VoIP does raise (again) the concern of what is the FCC's business. If I should at my neighbor over my fence, do I have to do it in such a way that is compliant with FCC's regulations? What if we decide to use tin cans connected with a string? When does it fall inside the FCC's four flags?
Furthermore, May 2007 isn't very far away for system-wide changes. So then it comes back to the triangle of manufacturing Quality - Price - Speed -- pick any two. If they say it's a requirement within 2 years, indrectly they may be demanding a chunk of revenues going into maintenance instead of expanding service or what have you. Either way, it doesn't seem like it will help consumers in the average case.
Well, if they had any fucking sense, they'd realise it wasn't possible. You can still (In the SIP/SDP case) send an arbitrary codec description over a call. The actual call is point-to-point.
Even taking into consideration the possibility of codec recognition and denying calls based on a restricted set of codecs, you could just place a "signature signal" at the start of the call - something relatively inaudible to the human ear - that triggers encryption etc. Maybe in the same way as Amateur Radioers have a blip at the start/end of speech.
if you encrypt your traffic and the FCC or some other Govt agency attempts/succeeds in breaking your encryption, could it ("they") be found guilty under the DMCA?
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
Aside from being a dupe, this submission is worded horribly. The FCC ruling does not allow VOIP-tapping; that's already allowed under standard warrant laws. The ruling is that VOIP providers should be required to make it just as easy to tap a VOIP call as it is to tap a land or cell call, by hooking into the phone company trunk. Given the wandering nature of internet packets, it would be intrusive, expensive, and possibly infeasible to add to an existing system.
No, stupid rules aren't illegal, but stuipd rules that will cause harm can be blocked. I didn't RTFA, but you can get an injunction that either prevents the stupid rule from being enforced or invalidates the rule altogether.
RTP and H.323 communications that do not have a PSTN endpoint are routed point to point. Wiretapping would require them to be routed through or multicasted to a central wiretap server (at least the ones that are being tapped).
IANAL, but judging by the similar pattern of events with the "broadcast flag" it has to do with the fact that this is a regulation created by the FCC, not a law passed by Congress. FCC decisions can be challenged in court because the FCC has a specific, limited mandate and you can argue that it has exceeded it's authority.
Also, the "seriously hinder innovation" line is most likely a rhetorical tool more than the actual central legal argument of the case
I'm wondering if this could affect other ways that voice communications get transmitted over the internet. Could they force tapping of voice transmissions over IM? How about conversations on Xbox Live? There are many ways other than Skype, Vonage, etc. to communicate with voice over the internet, would this affect all of them?
And yeah, I could go find the original posting to see if someone already answered this, but I'm here now, so...
I stole this sig from a more creative user.
Use open source secure VOIP software, preferably developed outside the US. If it doesn't go through a service provider, and it's encrypted, they won't succeed in tapping it without first hacking one of the endpoints, no matter what outrageous laws the FCC takes upon itself to pass.
if you encrypt your traffic and the FCC or some other Govt agency attempts/succeeds in breaking your encryption, could it ("they") be found guilty under the DMCA?
Yes, but you would only be allowed to take posession of all the Brittiny Spears mp3s that they have on their hard drives.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Articles like this show that the people making laws do not understand what their talking about. It's very easy to encrypt your data (including voice conversations). If the US decides that all VOIP should be tapable/unencrypted, the bad guys can use a service based in a foreign country that doesn't force phone taps. They can then communicate. Or better yet, they can develop their own software to encrypt phone calls and would anyone notice? No way, it would just sounds like static or something. Sorry guys, but there's no way to block people from encrypting stuff and keeping their keys locked safely in their own possession. Unless of course, you make encryption illegal, which would be difficult to do, because the privacy hounds would never let something like that happen.
No Sigs!
because they'd only hear every 10th word out of my mouth. Comcast Cable can't seem to guarantee me enough upload bandwidth to... decent... VoIP... bullsh... back to... fu...ng analog!
VoIP is the web, in a way. It's just a different protocol. If you read the SIP standards, they are very much like instant messaging standards, so can the FCC tap instant messages too? And it's not that different from normal HTTP either, ultimately, so can they tap that? At what point is it under their juridiction? If you are continuously sending packets of voice? What about sending an entire recording at once? How is it different?
These are the questions that I believe were behind the point that it will ruin innovation.
OK, so we have innovation , indeed, intuitive, copy protection, boxen, turbo, cyber, and FLOSS,
Got any other words, phrases, or acronyms we should stop using?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Didn't the FCC just recently win the Brand-X case in the Supreme Court arguing that broadband was an information service and not a telecommunications service, therefore broadband providers were not considered common carriers and under no obligation to "open up" their lines to competitors?
Doesn't it seem at least on the surface, if not directly, contradictory for this agency to have any discussion regarding wiretapping as far as VOIP goes? Doesn't wiretapping only happen on communication services? Doesn't the 'IP' part of VOIP primarily use broadband?
If these two events are contradictory in nature, how can they possibly co-exist without everyone drawing the conclusion that FCC functions, at least in part, to create rules allowing large (or perhaps simply first-to-market) broadband providers to maintain an unfair advantage over smaller or late-comer competitors?
Is this evidence of the belief that fair competition does not exist in the United States? That you can only have as much justice and fairness as you can buy, bribe, and lobby for?
Unless I'm completely misinformed...which may be the case so I'll apologize now...but plesase don't let that stop you from hurling your flames of vitriolic righteousness.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.