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/
...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
Real terrorists and criminals will use encryption, but the average person will not.
Therefore using encryption will be probable cause. Have nice day.
KFG
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)
Wiretapping is a legitimate power with a court order, as per the 4th Amendment. It was the 4th Amendment which granted the power to search in the first place.
And the problem with "a fascist ass like Bush" is that any power granted to any level of government will be abused. No matter how noble the present office holder is, there will be a fascist little twit there at some point.
That is why granting power to government doesn't work. It has never worked. Leviathan always grows, always gains more power to itself. Any "emergency" power today will be tomorrows "Legitimate Power". That's why the American Constitution has no provision for suspension of said Constitution. If it did, an "emergency" would be quickly manufactured and those Constitutional limitations on government power forsaken.
There are those who see "illegal combatant" as just another excuse for an abuse of power they want to do anyway.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
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