FBI Planning New Net-Tapping Push

Section_Ei8ht writes to tell us CNet is reporting that the FBI is pushing for legislation to allow law enforcement officials free access to networking gear via built in backdoors for eavesdropping. From the article: "Jim Harper, a policy analyst at the free-market Cato Institute and member of a Homeland Security advisory board, said the proposal would 'have a negative impact on Internet users' privacy. People expect their information to be private unless the government meets certain legal standards,' Harper said. 'Right now the Department of Justice is pushing the wrong way on all this.'"

Comments

It may take months, it may take years...

[QCompson]

...but this legislation or something very similar to it will pass. The fbi/U.S. government has discovered just how easy and effective it is to monitor citizens over the internet. Since so much of our daily life now occurs over the "tubes" of the internet (banking, purchasing, social-networking, entertainment, phone-calls, etc.), it makes it all too simple for the government to assemble detailed files on citizens just by eavesdropping on their net connection.

Sure, at first the feds/police will need to get warrants, but eventually that requirement too will fade away. The eye of Big Brother in every room will be present in the form of our internet connections. It is so pathetically easy for the government to get monitoring power over our online lives; all they have to do is repeat three words over and over again. Terrorism, child porn. Terrorism, child porn. Terrorism, child porn. That's it. If they keep repeating those three words, any legislation they want will glide right through Congress.

Re:I am a patriotic American.

[KylePflug]

Ironically, though this was meant as sarcasm, I really don't mind if the government knows most of those things about me (OK, maybe not 'every thought I've ever had,' but most of the rest would be pretty much fine by me.)

However, I object in principle for two reasons:

• Because someday the government may become actually oppressive (as in "take arms" oppressive), and it is at that point that the infrastructure which our rights to privacy currently prevent would be a serious liability to all interested in life, liberty, et al.
• Because while I don't have anything I would object horribly to the government knowing about me, I am not willing to cast my vote to allow them to, because to do so would be taking on the authority to decide that neither would anyone else.

So no, I have nothing to hide, and don't really object to some at least mostly impartial body knowing my 'secrets' as a matter of pragmatism, but in principle and because I can't speak for those around me, I object.

Re:Let me defend the law

[Anonymous Coward]

"but with a warrent the officials should be able to get into anywhere they want, including your electronic systems"

*@$#![1]

No, they shouldn't. Warrants are/were supposed to be specific as to what they were looking for; they were not an opportunity to go on a fishing expedition.

Just another example of how things are misused badly now, and people thinking that's the way they're supposed to be used. Warrants these days are so flimsy, even given from undocumented witnesses, and broad, you think that was always the norm.

We see this all the time, esp. with ISP raids. Law enforcement has an overly broad warrant, given for a specific reason, and they end up taking *all* the computers, networking equipment, hard drives, etc., disconnecting innocent and unaffiliated systems, trouncing over private data, digging into files that have no bearing on the case, and disrupting services and lives.

Yes, backdoors are bad simply because historically/generally most backdoors by government are weak and subject to (supposedly) undesired security intrustions. But don't also go thinking that warrants were ever supposed to be granted on a whim or broadly. That's a compounding issue itself.

[1] What I really wanted to do/did here was yell "You apologetic idiot!" but then this would never get read. Then again, I always post as AC, so this won't likely be read anyways.

Sales of US-manufactured networking equipment?

[RDaneel2]

Who is going to want to buy this stuff?

Not anyone outside the US... and not anyone *inside* - at least until they are required by law to "patriotically" only buy US-made networking gear.

It would have been nice if they had learned *something* from the years of the crypto export restrictions - stuff without the restrictions / backdoors / etc will be made somewhere, and will be purchased and used...

All this crap does is kill the viability in the global marketplace of products from US networking gear manufacturers. Sigh.

They are the same.

[khasim]

Nice analogy. However if someone in your family murders you, frankly no one else gives a damn.

Look up "Phil Hartman". You can find other examples on your own.

As oppossed to, say, a few thousand people getting killed at the same time and witnessed by people around the globe.

It was only "witnessed by people around the globe" because it was repeatedly broadcast.

If they repeatedly broadcast car wrecks around the globe, then the same could be said of them.

People who then wonder, can I even count on being safe going to work in the morning.

"Terrorism" is about scaring other people. Again, there is more of a threat to those people from other cars on the highway than from terrorists.

Financial markets that then wonder, exactly how resilient is this supposed super power.

"Terrorism" is about scaring other people. The country was in no more danger that day than a year prior.

Industry leaders who then wonder, maybe I should scale back hiring and investment because who knows what's going to happen next.

"Terrorism" is about scaring other people. Their businesses were in no more danger that day than than a year prior.

So all things considered, the two are not the same and the consequences of one are much greater and reach much further than the other.

No, they are the same in that in each scenario, people die.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm

The only differences are:
a. You are far more likely to die from aspirin than from terrorism.

b. People who do not understand statistics succumb to the "terror" in "terrorism".

Thankfully, outside of Slashdot, the nation is not populated by chicken littles and people are willing to take a slight reduction in privacy/anonymity in return for an increased liklihood that the government will be able to prevent more attacks.

And, over time, those "slight reductions" result in ... a police state.

Now, to demonstrate your understanding of statistics, why don't you name 5 countries which have fewer Rights than the US and fewer terrorist attacks.

If you cannot, then your point is invalid.

People also have enough common sense to realize that this is not a dictatorship, GW and friends will be out of power in a few more years, and our system of government will - as it always has - correct what some see as the excesses of current policy.

What "excesses of current policy"?

Either the reduction of Rights is necessary, or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.

By the way, facism starts when the populace has its involvement in political life curtailed.

Really? Perhaps you can provide an example of such? All of the Fascist states that I'm familiar with (Italy, German, etc) did not prevent the citizens from participating in politics. In fact, the citizens were encouraged to support the Fascists by identifying the "threats" in their communities.

The first shadow of the future police states was cast by the policies of Czarist Russia. It was not the czars overreaction to domestic terrorism that spawned it, it was the systematic denial of political involvement to the Russian citizenry for centuries.

"first shadow" and "centuries" don't match. Something cannot be the "first shadow" that happens over "centuries".

You may also want to read about various monarchs throughout the ages.

There have and always will be enemies of the state, and it is foolish to think that they are falsehoods perpetuated by those in power.

Look up "McCarthy witch hunt".

The key to preventing facism is an engaged citizenry with the political ability to curtail the overreaction of the g

Re:Let me attack the law

[darkonc]

Do you have something against the regular police wiretaps done with warrants?

No. I have something against irregular wiretaps done without warrents. Possibly even without the involvement of the police.

If you think that nobody outside of the police forces is going to have the codes to break into your network a week after the date is available, you've got your head in the sand.

Back in the '80s when it was common for the games companies to copy-protect their games (before they finally figured out that this just upset their legitimate customers), a friend of mine came in with a cracked copy of the latest game -- weeks before the game was available to legitimate purchasers. Network backdoor codes are going to be like that. The 2% of crooked cops will ensure that no spammer is going to lack for that information.