VOIP Tappings Under Scrutiny

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday October 27, 2005 @08:34AM from the as-well-they-should-be dept.

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."

11 of 107 comments (clear)

Encryption? by GreyWolf3000 · 2005-10-27 08:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
Weasel words, Ho! by AKAImBatman · 2005-10-27 08:37 · Score: 5, Funny

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
Re:Read it again by UOZaphod · 2005-10-27 08:42 · Score: 5, Funny

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."
The facts here are simple by Work+Account · 2005-10-27 08:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

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)!
1. Re:The facts here are simple by DrJimbo · 2005-10-27 09:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  To "sit on a wire" anywhere you should need a probable cause and a warrant.
  If by should, you mean in a ideal world, or at least in a world more ideal than ours, then I fully agree with you that such things should be needed. Unfortunately they are not, unless the Patriot Act was recently repealed and no one told me.
  
  --
  We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
  -- Anais Nin
Innovation? by P3NIS_CLEAVER · 2005-10-27 08:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

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/
The real question is... by 2names · 2005-10-27 08:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

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."
1. Re:The real question is... by Sloppy · 2005-10-27 09:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  DMCA contains an exemption for Law Enforcement.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
s/allow/require/ by frankie · 2005-10-27 08:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
Re:Huh? by temojen · 2005-10-27 08:54 · Score: 5, Informative

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).
Re:What type of lawsuit? by MaceyHW · 2005-10-27 08:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

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