Slashdot Mirror
Court Backs Broadband Wiretap Access
bitkid writes "Reuters reports that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a petition aimed at overturning a FCC decision requiring broadband providers and others that offer Internet telephone service to comply with wiretap laws. According to the court, private networks would not be subject to the wiretap requirements. Just the same, networks connected with a public network would have to comply with the law." From the article: "The court concluded that the FCC requirement was a 'reasonable policy choice' even though information services are exempted from the government's wiretapping authority."
Enough is Enough! http://tor.eff.org/
Encryption
I hope this caused some synapses to fire.
What's the point of a wiretap if we can encrypt? Or will encryption become illegal?
Someone is overstepping their bounds, and needs to get slapped.
Don't private networks eventually connect with public networks anyway? *scratches head*
...and would like to take this opportunity to freely voice my ardent support for the current administration, congress, judiciary and the brave men and women at homeland security. You make it possible for me to have no alternative but to state my views thusly from now on when in public. Thanks a bunch.
"If you don't have eyes you shouldn't have wings" -- Carl Pilkington
... or is everything technology-related thing that the US government touches in the past few years pretty much a travesty? How long before some of these lawmakers start dying off from old age and natural causes, because apparently they'll never get out of office any other way (being voted out for disgusting behaviour, and repeatedly failing the citizens they're intended to serve)
That goddamn neocon has taken more liberties from us in the past 6 years then the combined total of all presidents. All in the name of fighting Global terrorism. Fucking please.....
Congress(House) votes down Net neutrality in the name of better service to consumers (fucking corporate profit!!!!!!) and more censorship than China I'll bet....
Republicans are facists
Democrats are Socialists.
Liberatarians(sp?) are nutbags...
Green Party is for saving pigeons...
Damn isn't there a party left for the common man......
The only people who have it good in this country or lying politicians, corporate whores, scumbag lawyers, and slimy lobbyists...
When not abused by a fascist ass like Bush. However, let's not kid ourselves here. VoIP is the future of telecom. The court knows this too and said that it's within the spirit of the law. The great thing about the Internet is that VoIP might actually balkanize to the point that it'll be harder for the government to keep track of all of the different protocols, but as long as they are theoretically wiretappable, it should be fine legally.
From ordering private citizens to leave their doors permanently unlocked to ease the government's way in the service of a "lawful" search warrant?
Not just because I think that government (politicians) is not able to deal with change or technology, but because they will now have a reason to become technology savvy. With the proper warrant, a wire-tap on a phone has been acceptable in the past. Once they get the technology down pat, the only way to make sure that you are not tapped is to hide everything, and that is simply not how it was meant to be. In a wild thought, if you look at the US constitution, and the 'right to bear arms' issue, while the founders never envisioned the Internet, I'm PRETTY DAMNED CERTAIN (TM) that they would be alright with using your own encryption, or any other means of self armament to protect you from too much government intrusion in to your daily life.
I'm waiting for this issue to get tested in the court system..... I think its a constitutionally granted rights issue, not a simple matter of being able to 'hunt for terrists' at will. The rights of law abiding free men and women, necessarily uphold the rights of criminals to the same treatment. Changing that status quo means treating the law abiding people as criminals, and that is wrong.
The scariest part is that while a judge can say one way or the other, there is currently no manner for the people, the courts, or anyone else to manage how the government does such things. By that, I mean that there is no technically savvy oversight of such activities... sort of the ignorant being in charge of a group of hackers with malice in mind. We know where that will lead....
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
This just means that they can get warrants to tap your Vonage phone etc. This just brings your IP phone in parity with your land line.
Since when did operating systems become a religion?
Has anyone else noticed that our Republican government's telecom rulings always produce the most invasive government and least liable corporations, with humans always taking up all the slack?
Telcos and cablecos (what passes for "broadband" in the US) can run VoIP businesses that won't be taxed (increasing their price), required to support 911 or deliver universal service because they're somehow not "phone services". But when the government wants to tap them, they're "phone services".
There's no longer any role for consistent principles in our Republican government, except merely baselessly stating that each decision is a matter of principle.
--
make install -not war
So where's this public network I keep hearing about, & how much does it cost ?
I've been paying my membership fees to access my service providers private networks for years now.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Phil Zimmermann has put out some freeware that will provide strong voice encryption. You have to be using a soft phone, and obviously the person you're talkin to has to be using it as well. The interesting thing is that every call is a different encryption key, and you never knew what they were in the first place, so you can't give it up.
http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/zfone/index.html
Nahh they'll just throw you in jail on suspicion of being a terrorist, and a judge will claim contempt until you give them the encryption keys.
IANAL but I've been told by one that it is often to your benefit in certain situations to plead the 5th, refuse to testify, or if they won't allow for that claim ignorance that you have fogotten even though you will end up with some type of punishment or contempt in court.
But only if the punishment of what the crime is if it outweighs the charge of contempt.
The truth of the conversation was whether or not it was ok to refuse to take a breathalyzer test. If you refuse to take it, you can get your license supsended up to 12 months, but if you take it and were convicted of drunk driving you could face jail time plus 5 years suspension...
Now don't everyone go refusing breath tests now because these laws vary state to state, but the lawyer also told me without hard evidence it is easier to me off (errr don't ask) with a judge or jury because beyond reasonable doubt means there is real evidence that you commited a crime... Not hearsay that since you refused the test that you must be drunk.
However... Like I said before talk to your lawyer if you really want to know about the rules of this in your state (some states have refusal means a lot more)
So to apply to this situation and the moral of this situation... If you ever find yourself in a room full of FBI agents demanding your encryption keys... Explain to them it is your constitutional right (the 5th) to remain silent and you wish to speak to your lawyer so he can advise you how to proceed.
If a judge is ordering your encryption keys to be released, then have a frank discussion with your lawyer over whether or not the information that is contained on those drives will get you more jailtime if convicted than jailtime for refusing to comply.
Although... If you find yourself strapped on a table with a room full of NSA or CIA agenents with one of them weilding a cattle prod and other asking for those keys in a stern german accent... Well... Best of luck then.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I'm repeating what someone else remarked here when I say there is a solution. Given the privacy climate, it might also become the standard encryption strategy. Follow this: You have a regular private key which does decrypt, and a fake 'I've been caught' key which decrypts into something innocuous.
Add features to make it indistinguishable(can this be done??) from the regular decryption, and I think what you end up with is actual privacy. Although with one very upset government on our hands, but that's another day.
IMHO the government has severely shot itself, and by extension, us in the footal region by overreaching and prompting this flavour of technical reaction. This is an irreversible response...when lowly citizens taste their first control over their personal data, there's no reason, from their perspective to go back. Is there?
"Well since I know I'm doing nothing wrong, there's no reason for my info to be examined. Since it's now my choice, I'll keep encypting"
See, now the argument goes both ways.
"If you don't have eyes you shouldn't have wings" -- Carl Pilkington
IANAL but I've been told by one that it is often to your benefit in certain situations to plead the 5th, refuse to testify, or if they won't allow for that claim ignorance that you have fogotten even though you will end up with some type of punishment or contempt in court.
...
Yep! Mod parent up! While IANAL, I do know you do have a Constitutional right to not incriminate yourself. They can't make you do anything.
The technique described above is used everyday in court.
This is exactly what happened to the journalist who outed Valerie Plame. She sat in jail for 90 days rather than comply with the judge's order to reveal her sources.
See, in most states, contempt of court is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum term of (usually) 90 days in jail. So if you're doing something that'll get you more than that (and almost anything bigger than a misdemeanor will get you more than that) and you get asked for the keys...plead the 5th. If you fail to give the keys to the judge, in most states the most the judge can lock you up for is 90 days! Oh, and due to double jeopardy rules, you can't get locked up for it twice, so the judge can't just keep you in a loop of:
while $answer = 'pleading the 5th' do
ask_for_key;
if $answer = 'pleading the 5th' then
go_to_jail;
else
endif
done
My blog
Log on. Free.
Although... If you find yourself strapped on a table with a room full of NSA or CIA agenents with one of them weilding a cattle prod and other asking for those keys in a stern german accent... Well... Best of luck then.
Well... That's what truecrypt is for.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
While the movie may not have been a critical success, they the makers did not develop the most interesting part of the plot, I came out of the movie saying to my wife that this was they way I saw America and its government changing. My wife hates politics and think rosy thoughts usually, and even she was agreeing with me.
It is dangerous to be right on a subject on which the established authorities are wrong. - Voltaire
http://www.pirate-party.us/
They're forming a Pirate Party in the USA. Of course, it's still pretty new and Slashdot didn't accept my article on it, but... let's keel haul the blaggards!
http://fromfreedomtofascism.com/
I wouldn't bet on that.
Double Jeopardy means you can't be punished twice for the same offense. It does not give you a license to repeat the offense by continuing to refuse a judge's lawful order.
"Get Out Of Jail Free" cards aren't often to be found in real life.
"Although... If you find yourself strapped on a table with a room full of NSA or CIA agenents with one of them weilding a cattle prod and other asking for those keys in a stern german accent... Well... Best of luck then."
"Well... That's what truecrypt is for."
Um... someone ought to be reminded to never, ever mention Truecrypt in this context again (i.e., imprisonment and other sundry legal sanctions), unless one wants to cue another endless onslaught of:
"But, if you can't prove that you have no hidden encrypted containers, they'll imprison/torture you forever."
"Wrong! If they can't prove that you do have hidden encrypted containers, they'll not be able to imrison/torture you forever."
"Wrong! If you can't prove that you have no hidden encrypted containers, they'll imprison/torture you forever."
"Wrong! If they can't prove that you do have hidden encrypted containers, they'll not be able to imrison/torture you forever."
"Wrong! If you can't prove that you have no hidden encrypted containers, they'll imprison/torture you forever."
"Wrong! If they can't prove that you do have hidden encrypted containers, they'll not be able to imrison/torture you forever."
And on and on--ad infinitum, and in rapidly decreasing respectability--once again recreating the essence of every damned truecrypt discussion on this bloody forum.
Or sign up for a foreign-based VOIP service that allows porting of US numbers (such carriers exist in Canada for example).
What's stopping criminals and/or terrorists from speaking in code during an ordinary phone conversation? Nothing, really.
But we still accept regular old wiretaps, as well as all the special equipment that phone service providers are required to use in order to make such spying possible.
I honestly don't see a big difference between the gov't snooping on IP traffic and snooping on phone conversations. If wiretaps really are so blatantly intolerable as is claimed, people really ought to be agitating to get rid of _all_ wiretaps.
I don't know about wiretaps and encryption, but perhaps the moral of your situation is "how about just not driving drunk."
Ok, so the VPN circuit is fair game and subjet to be monitored, what if you use heavy end to end encryption? Are you committing some abstract act of 'interference with the authorities' and inviting a raid?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Back in the day, witetapping was for phones, for some phones (because the tech wasn't there to snoop en masse), and it impacted most people not at all. It was a tool against crooks.
Nowadays and increasingly, we are going to be always online, always interconnected, sending and recieving, and faced with interception that could theoretically be continuous - a panopticon. Or, we could decide that the government can no longer own that power, and snatch it back from them.
I'd like to see the USA introduce a new constitutional amendment: "the right of the people to be secure in their persons and posessions against communication monitoring or interception shall not be infringed".
Recent polls have shown that 28-35% of US voters lean libertarian. It is essentially the party that has a firm and hard stance on issues based upon principle.
t .php
You should really study it a bit more:
http://cato.org/about/about.html
http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml
http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/categories_lis
Libertas in infinitum