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."
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*
Won't work, they'll tap you at the first hop (the cable company's router) if they have to.
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
... 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)
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
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