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)!
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/
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.
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
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!