Monday is Wiretap the Internet Day

Alien54 wrote with a link to a Wired blog entry noting that May 14th is the official deadline for internet service providers to modify their networks, and meet the FBI and FCC's new regulations. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act requires that everyone from cable services to Universities give them access, within certain parameters, to the usage habits of customers. "So, if you're a broadband provider (separately, some VOIP companies are covered too) ... Hurry! The deadline has already passed to file an FCC form 445, certifying that you're on schedule, or explaining why you're not. You can also find the 68-page official industry spec for internet surveillance here. It'll cost you $164.00 to download, but then you'll know exactly what format to use when delivering customer packets to federal or local law enforcement, including 'e-mail, instant messaging records, web-browsing information and other information sent or received through a user's broadband connection, including on-line banking activity.'"

Comments

Limits on government

[BWJones]

Of course this has been going on for some time, but we are only just now getting around to making it legal (Constitutional arguments aside). I really do find this incredibly disturbing and believe that the founding members of this country would be shocked and dismayed at where we have gone in the past few years (last six or so in particular). What I cannot believe is how anyone on either side of the political spectrum would 1) think this is a good idea and 2) allow this to happen. Remember people that this country is still young and has the appearance of a country that is not only spinning out of control, but it seems to be edging closer to devolving into a shell of its former self. Don't get me wrong here. I am proud to be an American, but we should not stand silent while this country falls apart either through selfish motivation or criminal negligence.

Remember folks that the Constitution is not a document about what rights people possess, nor is it a document that outlines what governments can do. Rather it is a document that describes limits on what government can do and it could be clearly argued that the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act violates those provisions in the Constitution designed to protect the individual from unreasonable governmental surveillance.

Re:Limits on government

[calidoscope]

Remember folks that the Constitution is not a document about what rights people possess, nor is it a document that outlines what governments can do. Rather it is a document that describes limits on what government can do and it could be clearly argued that the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act violates those provisions in the Constitution designed to protect the individual from unreasonable governmental surveillance.

The central part of the US Constitution pretty much describes what the Federal government can do and gives authority to do so. It is the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments that puts the limits on government powers - and the Bill of Rights was passed because of concerns with the powers granted in the Constitution. The Constitution was created and ratified because the central government under the Articles of Confederation was too weak to be effective.

Re:Limits on government

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention funny too without being stupidly smutty...

Re:Limits on government

[Heembo]

I hear you, but what can we do to really stop this? Submit more digg posts? Write our congressman? Protest at the FCC HQ? What can we do to really stop this? I'm all ears!

Re:Limits on government

[Lavene]

I hear you, but what can we do to really stop this? Submit more digg posts? Write our congressman? Protest at the FCC HQ? What can we do to really stop this? I'm all ears! Well, in the rest of the 'free' world we do it through something called an 'election'. We actually get to choose our government and thereby exercise a fair amount of control. If we want something really bad we can even involve our self directly by joining a political party or even start our own. The entire process is commonly known as 'democracy'.

You Americans should try it once... it's pretty cool actually.

Re:Limits on government

[mikkelm]

And now, so is the federal government!

Re:Limits on government

[asninn]

Basically, it boils down to Howdershelt's four boxes again - soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Google for the exact quote.

Re:Limits on government

[iminplaya]

Digg...Pffft! Screw congress. F* the FCC! Talk to your neighbors. See if they will look past their own wallet when voting. Try to get them to stop voting for crooks. The cause of all these problems don't live and work in Washington. The cause lives right there on your street. Down the block. Around the corner. Right next door! Maybe even inside your own house! Some will see, but not recognize the cause in the bathroom mirror every morning. To those that accept this and inflict it upon the rest of us, Thanks! You're all heart! Words cannot describe how I feel about you.

Re:Limits on government

[Heembo]

We actually get to choose our government and thereby exercise a fair amount of control. You must be new here. That ceased happening a long time ago. The US political system is only a tiny representation of the true political spectrum.

Re:Limits on government

[MindKata]

The government, any government from any party is made up of people who's career has been to seek power. In other words, seek power over other people. Its no surprise anyone in power would seek to gain more power over others and technology allows this, so there's an inevitable drift towards wanting more power. This applies to all governments in all countries, its not just American, although its more saddening to hear from countries which claim to allow personal freedom. But that freedom has always been mostly an illusion caused by the people in power lacking the resources to control to the level some of them would wish to have.

This is why people throughout the political spectrum would 1) think its a good idea and 2) allow this to happen.

Without restraint then unfortunately I think the world could walk into a big brother scenario. All the time people in power fear opponents seeking to oppose them or bully them in their point of view, or simply undermine their power, they will want to secure stronger controls of people.

Its being driven by basic human natures, (such as fear), rather than being driven specifically by any one political ideology.

Re:Limits on government

[iminplaya]

The American people havn't been in control of anything for a long time now.

Well, you should understand, that's generally what happens when they fall asleep at the wheel, it's the preferred method to die, not yelling and screaming like the other passengers in the car.

Re:Limits on government

[boolithium]

Anyone can find the details here. http://www.askcalea.net/calea/http://www.askcalea. net/calea/ Now I have read through this and there is one really disturbing term. Here is the summary statement. /* Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA) In October 1994, Congress took action to protect public safety and national security by enacting CALEA. The law further defines the existing statutory obligation of telecommunications carriers to assist law enforcement in executing electronic surveillance pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization. CALEA is codified at 47 U.S.C. 1001-1021. */ The verbage "pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization" is all through the law. Now I know what a court order is, and if a federal judge determines you might just be selling Vietnamese slaves on ebay, I got no beef with them checking up on your daily myspace blogs. In other words big brother isn't so bad, if he's kicking your school bully's ass. But what the fuck does lawful authorization mean? In my small amount of knowledge that college didn't destroy, I thought the judicial branch was the only one who could authorize court orderish kind of shit. All I can say to anyone monitoring without a court order is, if you get lawful authorization without a court, then so do the rest of us. "By any means necessary!"

Re:Limits on government

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: I am not American, so I possibly don't know enough about your constitution.

The way I understand it is that the constitution limits the powers that the government has by enumerating them. It defines the upper limit of the power of the government. In contrast, the bill of rights defines the lower limit of rights that the people have by enumerating basic rights. People have more rights than are defined in the bill of rights. They are only limited by the law (the manifestation of other people's rights).

Re:Limits on government

[penix1]

I always love how people try to put all the blame on the voters. While they do bear the burden for some of it the lions share goes to the lame ass candidates. I can't remember the last time I actually felt confident in a candidate enough to say "I voted for him". Instead, it is "Oh my god! I have to vote against the other guy or the whole thing will really be fucked!" It has become a choice of the idiot behind door number one or the other idiot behind door number two with both being paid the big bucks by corporate interests. It takes a special kind of idiot to win an election in the US. It is no wonder voters feel their vote doesn't count for shit given choices like that.

Re:Limits on government

[Anonymous Coward]

What can you do? Plenty! Instead of merely arguing on slashdot, get out into the streets! Make sure your local elected representatives know your point of view. Repeatedly. Remember that you're up against lobbyists. You have to yell louder to be heard.

Organize street protests for public displays of support (or opposition) -- contrary to what many people think, street protests are very important. They help fence-sitters and others holding the same point of view who may think they don't have critical mass to join in. Write your congress(wo)man.

Spread the word. In a real democracy, every citizen is also an activist. Activist is not a dirty word. It means that you are active in protecting and advancing your democracy (by the people, for the people, remember that jazz?) You ALWAYS have to fight for what is right and what you want.

Learn from the "surrendering" french -- anytime a politican (or anybody else in the public eye) steps out of line in France, all hell breaks loose. They have the art of keeping power in check with street activism down. It's a wonderful thing. Contribute your time (and some money) to the EFF, ACLU, MoveOn, organization of your choice. Educate, educate, educate. Protest, protest, protest. Don't let setbacks get to you. Wear them down. It's your country. If you want to keep it, you gotta fight. Throwing your hands up on slashdot ain't good enough.

Re:Limits on government

[SunTzuWarmaster]

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-- Ed Howdershelt

Re:Limits on government

[Jerry Beasters]

Mod this up! He understands this more clearly than most of us Americans.

Re:Limits on government

[ratsnapple tea]

Or you could get involved in the political process earlier, like in the primaries, before all the loonies have been weeded out. But then, of course, you'd be giving up the chance to whine endlessly about door one and door two.

Re:Limits on government

[nevernamed]

Of course, the people have been so brainwashed into thinking that they will be ambushed by terrorists (most-likely turban-toting brown men) outside their front door that they are willing to go along with such vehement civil rights abuses with little objection.

Re:Limits on government

[ratsnapple tea]

Why is it that those constantly making reference to "sheeple" seem, in fact, the most obnoxious bleaters of all?

I bet you voted for Nader in 2000, didn't you? No difference between Bush and Gore? Jesus fucking hell, get a clue.

Re:Limits on government

[Alsee]

You Americans should try it once... it's pretty cool actually.

Oh, we did try it once. We didn't think it nearly so cool as watching Paris Hilton go to jail for being a spoiled twit.

-

Re:Limits on government

[roystgnr]

No difference between Bush and Gore? Jesus fucking hell, get a clue.

While I agree with you that there are many huge differences between Bush and Gore, this probably isn't the right discussion in which to depend on those differences. Google "Clipper chip" and "key escrow" for more information. Gore doesn't exactly have a history of valuing individual privacy rights over ease of government wiretapping.

Also, thanks to the electoral college system, it is often possible to safely vote for a third party, because most of us live in states where preelection polling makes the results entirely predictable and the margins are such that a vote to increase a third party candidate's results can be more valuable than a vote for one of the major candidates. It's clear that most of the Nader voters in Florida were idiots, but voting for Nader might have been reasonable in California or Texas.

Re:Limits on government

[Syberghost]

It's rather disingenuous to take a law that Bill Clinton signed and supported, and which was in existence for 7 years of his Presidency, and try to spin your disagreement with it into an indictment of the current administration. Especially considering the fact that a Democrat wrote it, and all the Democrats in both houses of Congress voted for it. As did all the Republicans; I'll neither whitewash nor spin this.

Re:Limits on government

[roystgnr]

Well, in the rest of the 'free' world we do it through something called an 'election'. We actually get to choose our government and thereby exercise a fair amount of control. If we want something really bad we can even involve our self directly by joining a political party or even start our own. The entire process is commonly known as 'democracy'.

You Americans should try it once... it's pretty cool actually.

We've actually been trying it for a centuries - so long that the powers that be have learned to game the flaws in the system. That's why you could find Republicans donating to a Green party opponent of Rick Santorum, for instance, because unlike in your naive "we could start our own political party" fantasy, in the real world plurality voting causes third parties to siphon votes away from the major party that more closely expresses their views. Perhaps I'm wrong, and your democracy uses Condorcet voting? No? Didn't think so. I hope you've at least got Proportional Representation, or you can expect your oligarchies to figure out how to abuse the system even faster than ours did.

Amazingly, although they didn't understand the tradeoffs in different multi-party vote counting systems, the American founding fathers did understand an even deeper flaw with representative democracy: sometimes, 51% of the voters pick a dickhead. Their solution, a constitution which limits the authority that even popularly-elected leaders have, would work here if any of our opposing leaders had the balls to help enforce it. The Ninth and Fourth Amendments in the Bill of Rights would both apply here, if only the Democrats hadn't long ago agreed to ignore the Ninth to fight the "War on Poverty" and ignore the Fourth to fight the "War on Drugs". The "War on Terrorism" is just another step in the same direction, not an unprecidented disaster.

Re:Limits on government

[BWJones]

What are you talking about? I specifically made reference to both sides of the isle in my criticism of this law and the only reference I made to the current administration was in the statement about the last six years where *many* other rollbacks on Constitutional issues have taken place. Habeus Corpus? Have you seen it? That was on Bush and Company's shoulders. We could go on and on here, and while I agree with you in principle here, most Constitutional scholars would agree that the current administration has done serious damage to personal freedoms in this country.

Re:Limits on government

[kitman420]

Instead of whining about it, has anyone been able to find the congressional voting records on the extension of CALEA?

Re:Limits on government

[penix1]

That's only valid if you are associated with one of the two parties.....Which I am not being registered independent...

Re:Limits on government

[billcopc]

Only problem is the democrats don't have enough money to buy all the votes.

The United States were built through wars, not diplomacy. Why does anyone expect that to change now ? It's a young country whose only history involves fighting... fighting others, fighting itself... It takes a long time for a nation to stabilize and harmonize, the only reason the US is even on the map is because of their notoriety and a few long streaks of financial success, as well as some pretty serious tunnel-vision as evidenced by the complete ignorance of China's power until recently. Everything is still very much up in the air for the next few years and it all depends on how well the United States can perform as a whole nation, not just its simian leader.

Re:Limits on government

[yabos]

Well as someone said(I think on South Park actually), what do you do when you're choices are a total idiot and a douche? Face it, in the US(and here in Canada, Liberal vs. Conservative, both equally useless parties), there aren't really any choices. The other small parties have no idea what they'd do if they actually won.

Re:Limits on government

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear you, but what can we do to really stop this? Submit more digg posts? Write our congressman? Protest at the FCC HQ? What can we do to really stop this? I'm all ears! Well, in the rest of the 'free' world we do it through something called an 'election'. We actually get to choose our government and thereby exercise a fair amount of control. If we want something really bad we can even involve our self directly by joining a political party or even start our own. The entire process is commonly known as 'democracy'.

You Americans should try it once... it's pretty cool actually. That's a lovely idea. Where you live maybe you are the majority. And that's great, because you think you actually do change things by taking part in 'democracy'. But you see this 'democracy' has two sides, the majority side (the winners) and the minority side (the losers). The majority right now (and for a while now) are a bunch of idiots. Now I'm sure you can rally up a few people behind you with concerns of privacy, but really give it some time and the rest of your democratic people will surely vote for the same pricks that voted for the wire-tapping bill in the first place. Oh the joys of representative leaders right?

Re:Limits on government

[iminplaya]

I always love how the voter tries to pin the blame on somebody else, and simply won't accept responsibility. The same voters who fall for every lie in the books over and over. The same voter who is only thinking of voting themselves a bigger chunk of the government pie. The same voter who can't tear him/herself from American Idol for ten seconds to make even the feeblest attempt to be informed about what's going on beyond their property line. This is exactly why you have what you have. The system is your to change. Don't blame the politicians if you don't get along with your neighbors enough to cooperate and actually do something. Don't blame the politicians for the redneck bigots* we see right here on Slashdot who will fight you tooth and nail to get what they want without caring about the consequences. Sorry, the burden has been laid upon you, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Accept it and make the the appropriate changes, or don't, and continue living with what you have, while expecting some mystical hero to come along and do everything for you. You, your children, your grandchildren, will die waiting. Too simple. Nothing will happen until you make it happen.

*you know who you are.

Re:Limits on government

[robbiethefett]

funny story.. we actually used to do that. now we have Diebold. progress.. mmmm, how bittersweet it is.

Re:Limits on government

[Kjella]

Unfortunately, they're mostly eliminated:

Soapbox - the real "soap box" is the TV, only big media moguls and rich corporations get to play. Blogs don't have nearly the same impact, but I guess this one is fairly alive. Too bad there's so little left people can do that matter.

Ballot box - two parties, both on a power trip. Even if a third party started to gain traction, they'd shift politics a little and it'd disappear into nothingness again. Not to mention that going to a third party makes your side weaker - if 20% voted 3rd party, 35% the "favored" of the big parties and 45% the "unfavored" big party, the unfavored big party would win even though the other parties have 55% of the votes.

Jury box - the only place I've ever heard the words "jury nullification" is on slashdot. I can't think of a single article I've ever read where this was used in modern time, which should have generated some press. Most of the time it seems you should be happy if they pass judgement on the evidence and the law, and not on their personal hatred for the crime they're accused of.

Ammo box - any armed revolution would involve a lot of civil unrest and loss of security. Given the reaction after 9/11, I'd say most people would want those terr-uh-rists shot for trying to away take their dem-uh-cracy, regardless of whether it's just or not. People want security, and the easiest way is to let the government crush the opposition.

People tend to think this will only be used in the "big" and "important" things, things that don't involve them. They fail to see that there's plenty people that want to meddle in the lives of other people, right down to whether they stick their dick up another man's ass in their own home. People that love to dig up dirt on somone and pass moral judgement on them. People with plenty prejudice out on a mission to prove themselves right. Latent bullys just waiting for that government power over other people, to be a pest and a bother. Corrupt people who trades in favors and obedience. When the Soviet Union and the East Bloc fell, it wasn't because of a few "enemies of the state". It was because millions of people were sick and tired of having their lives interfered with and controlled by a government that wanted to know every detail of their life. They should call this "The STASI archive act", maybe that'd raise a few eyebrows. Then again, how many Americans would recognize history if it was staring them right in the face...

Re:Limits on government

[gogodidi]

Unfortunately Rap and Techno music have ruined the youth. Its popularity and grossly indecent neglect and disinterest in political issues has corrupted the youth!

Re:Limits on government

[kurtmckee]

> Disclaimer: I am not American, so I possibly don't know enough about your constitution.

Don't worry about it. Most of us Americans don't know enough about our constitution either.

Re:Limits on government

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

Bravo, sir! You clearly understand exactly what the US Constitution says. I would be proud to sponsor your citizenship, if you'll promise me you'll vote along those lines. Unfortunately, almost nobody in America does, particularly those in power.

Re:Limits on government

[tignom]

The way I understand it is that the constitution limits the powers that the government has by enumerating them. It defines the upper limit of the power of the government. In contrast, the bill of rights defines the lower limit of rights that the people have by enumerating basic rights. People have more rights than are defined in the bill of rights. They are only limited by the law (the manifestation of other people's rights).

That's close, but not quite. What the constitution really does is grant the government powers by enumerating them. Some of those grants are quite broad. For example, the interstate commerce clause has been interpreted so broadly as to allow the government to regulate nearly anything involving the production and distribution of goods. But the important thing to remember is that the US government derives its power from its citizens and is innately limited to whatever powers we grant it. The government doesn't have any intrinsic powers for the constitution to limit.

Your explanation of these grants and the bill of rights as upper and lower bounds is a very good, concise description. I've never seen constitutional law boiled down to something that can be parsed by a mathematician before.

Re:Limits on government

[Anonymous Coward]

promise me you'll vote along those lines

At least around here, that would be illegal.

Re:Limits on government

[alshithead]

"Well as it turns out, one of the qualifications to choosing our government is being white."

Actually I don't that race plays into it at all. I'm sure that a black, Hispanic, or Asian American could be elected if they proved themselves to be sufficiently compliant to our corporate overlords.

Re:Limits on government

[alshithead]

"Also, thanks to the electoral college system, it is often possible to safely vote for a third party, because most of us live in states where preelection polling makes the results entirely predictable and the margins are such that a vote to increase a third party candidate's results can be more valuable than a vote for one of the major candidates."

Thank you for pointing out a major flaw in our system that seems to escape many who consider themselves politically educated. The electoral college is what allows a candidate to win even though they may not have actually won the popular vote. Of course, another major flaw is the fact that most candidates seem to have to cater to special interests in order to gain enough momentum to even possibly be elected. Special interests do not have have the country's interests at heart, only their own...and screw everyone else.

Re:Limits on government

[nugneant]

Face it, in the US(and here in Canada, Liberal vs. Conservative, both equally useless parties), there aren't really any choices.

You're jaded, and I'm jaded as well. But at least I don't succumb to bullshit circular logic like "the only choices are the Dems and the Repubs, because third parties are worthless". There is a choice, it's just that most of the population is too busy trying to game the system ("a vote for green is a vote for red") and not busy enough actually voting with their hearts.

Clinton made it possible to deport terrorists to other countries where they could be tortured (see: Extraordinary rendition). Jimmy Carter was open to the possibility of re-newing the Draft. I'd sooner vote Green and suffer the sneers of hipster assholes than ever walk away from the voting booth having given my vote to a bullshit asshole.

More and more, I feel that the reason people react so snarkishly to the term "sheeple" is because it's a bit too offensive, a bit too on the mark. Really, I'd like to stop calling you Earnest Student Democrat folks "dumb shitheads", but as long as you continue to act like such, I can't help myself. After years of turbulent bickering amongst the left/liberal wing of politics, the greater percentage of American liberals tried the whole "smile and turn the other cheek" thing (i.e., "I understand that this guy is NOT PERFECT but I will VOTE FOR HIM ANYWAY because he is in all actuality BETTER THAN THAT OTHER SHITHEAD") in the 80s, and it got us eight years of Reagan, four years of Bush, and eight years of William "CDA / OH LORD THE CHILDREN / Extraordinary Rendition" Clinton. Fuck that shit - you're assholes, shitheads, and need to change the way you view the world, before you all choke to death on the noxious fumes of your elected leader-of-the-moment's horseshit.

HAND :)

Re:Limits on government

[alshithead]

I agree wholeheartedly with most your post but now I'll play devil's advocate...

"Organize street protests for public displays of support (or opposition) -- contrary to what many people think, street protests are very important."

Right, street protest and get beaten and shot with rubber bullets by the police.

Re:Limits on government

[yabos]

I don't even vote liberal or conservative. Where I live is mostly old people and hicks and they are all stuck in their ways. Consequently, conservatives always win around here no matter what. I agree with you, people should stop voting based on what they think other people will vote and actually think about it first. I'm looking forward to the day when a party other than the 2 big ones(of either country, Canada, U.S.) actually wins.

Re:Limits on government

[samantha]

Bring on the Dark Nets. All of us who can help need to build out an alternate underground internet equivalent. The internet as is is all too eesy to subject to such surveillance and far worse. It is too easy to control the all important flow of open communication. The day will come when governments limit access and approved usage much more tightly. We need to be ready. We need to refuse to be controlled.

Re:Limits on government

[loxosceles]

We need range voting. Voting in plurality voting or IRV single-winner elections merely lends credibility to a corrupt method of candidate selection, encouraging dominance by two parties which have a game-theoretic interest in remaining close to moderates on most issues. You can vote for third parties, but it's literally not worth your time to fill in the bubble or press the button, and it's certainly not worth your time to research candidates who have no chance of winning.

Nobody cares whether Libertarians or Greens get .5% or 1% of the vote (unless it's in a swing state), but if national election turnout falls to 20% or 10%, that might catalyze real change.

The rest of the problem is voter stupidity, but that's unsolvable.

Re:Limits on government

[morleron]

For one thing I urge you to start using encryption for your email. There's no sense making it any easier than necessary for the agents of darkness to decide that you've written something that could be considered illegal, disloyal, of a "threat to national security". Anyone who doesn't start using encryption is simply making it easy for the State to monitor the communications of all of us. No matter how powerful the computers of the NSA, FBI, etc. they won't have time, if the use of encryption becomes common, to not only decrypt all the email, but then also parse through all of it for anything that's "out of line".

Just my $.02,
Ron

Re:Limits on government

[Mooga]

Well as someone said(I think on South Park actually), what do you do when you're choices are a total idiot and a douche?
It was a Shit and a Douche. They were voting for school mascots and the options were either a Shit Sandwich or a Douche.

Re:Limits on government

[node 3]

Fuck that shit - you're assholes, shitheads, and need to change the way you view the world, before you all choke to death on the noxious fumes of your elected leader-of-the-moment's horseshit. And, somehow, *SPLITTING* the progressive/liberal vote between the Democratic candidate and the top third-party leftist candidate is going to work out better?

Coming in second and third doesn't mean shit. Only first place matters.

I'll take 4, 8, 12, whatever I can get, years of people who "*think* about bringing back the draft, who make extraordinary rendition *possible*" over even just four years of someone who puts us in a constant state of war, who makes extraordinary rendition and outright torture standard operating procedure, who uses their office to not only steal our money today, but steal, today, the money we'll be making for the rest of our lives, who packs the Supreme Court with people who will be fucking us over for decades to come, and so on.

When your choice is between asshole A, and mega-fucking-nuclear-holocaust-asshole B, only an idiot would vote for impossible-to-win-but-super-nice saint C, if there *any chance whatsoever* that mega-fucking-nuclear-holocaust-asshole B might win in a close race.

Re:Limits on government

[calidoscope]

I did misspeak (miswrote?) on my first post - the US Constitution, prior to amendments, does have a mechanism for limiting government power through the doctrine of Separation of Powers, i.e. the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches (often referred to as checks and balances).

The argument used in favor of expanding wiretapping is that a few would lose some rights so that the 'majority' would retain their 'right' to be free of terror. Similar arguments have been used in wartime where a temporary loss of rights were considered preferable to a permanent loss of rights from losing the war. The worst example in the last century was during the US involvement in WW1 where it was illegal to say anything negative about the war effort - and in retrospect, both the US and the world may have been better off letting Europe settle their differences (read Orwell's 1984 and then read Barry's The Great Influenza).

In addition, there are a couple of areas where the 'innocent until proven guilty' doesn't apply - dealing with the IRS and dealing with the family court system in most states. Also the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination does not apply to civil cases.

Re:Limits on government

[Scrameustache]

a Democrat wrote it, and all the Democrats in both houses of Congress voted for it. As did all the Republicans; I'll neither whitewash nor spin this. How much fun is it to get to choose between fascists with a donkey logo or fascists with an elephant logo?
Is it as fun, or less fun than a barrel of monkeys?

Re:Limits on government

[BalanceOfJudgement]

When the Soviet Union and the East Bloc fell, it wasn't because of a few "enemies of the state". It was because millions of people were sick and tired of having their lives interfered with and controlled by a government that wanted to know every detail of their life. They should call this "The STASI archive act", maybe that'd raise a few eyebrows. Then again, how many Americans would recognize history if it was staring them right in the face...

The really sick part is, once we do realize it it will be way to late to change it. It pretty much already is. War, REAL war, not these stupid "occupational skirmishes", has become something very few in our society have any stomach for. Armed resistance against the US military is pretty much pointless since any weapons of merit have been outlawed. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure the people could go toe-to-toe with the government, and the government has made nice and sure that will never happen.

Alas, all is not lost. All we'd need is a couple of intelligent military commanders to switch loyalties and rebels would have several divisions on their side. I suppose it's supposed to be that hard by design - armed resistance is a last ditch effort when all else has failed.

Incidentally, the wrongs visited upon the American people by our current government FAR outstrip anything George III ever did to the American colonists.

Re:Limits on government

[nugneant]

And, somehow, *SPLITTING* the progressive/liberal vote between the Democratic candidate and the top third-party leftist candidate is going to work out better?

You don't think that the Democrats (who are centrists, not leftists, stop deluding yourself) might catch on that their party isn't quite left enough, and start changing their platform accordingly? You know, like what they did during the civil rights era? Hmm.

Coming in second and third doesn't mean shit. Only first place matters.

I don't think you know politics. If a party receives something like five percent of the popular vote, they're eligible for special funding and consideration. If a party receives thirty percent of the vote, I think that says something to your average "go-with-the-flow" Newsweek reader that, hey, there's a new alternative.

The rest of your post was, forgive me, stupid as fuck and pointless to get into. I'm sure Clinton didn't enact the DCMA (wait) or do his best to continue the media monopoly trend started by Reagan by easing restrictions on telecom ownership (wait again), or pass any nasty conservative bills allowing states to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman only (oh shit, wait, wait) -- well you're right, at least he didn't fuck up anything overseas, except for, you know, that pesky Iraq Liberation Act.

Still, better to piss away your vote so you can have a spineless do-nothing sleazebucket in office and feel powerful and righteous 'cause your team won, rather than, you know, vote for any sort of positive change. It's sure worked out in your Earnest Student Democrat favor the past two Presidential elections. Good going with that.

Re:Limits on government

[DamnStupidElf]

The other small parties have no idea what they'd do if they actually won.

What needs to be done? What are the really pressing issues that everyone cares about? It seems like half the country wants to be pre-marital genital inspectors and the other half wants free health care and welfare for life. What are third party candidates supposed to do? Sit and do nothing, I'd hope.

Re:Limits on government

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans are told who to vote for by their TV sets. If any distressing thoughts occur to them, they get the proper pills to make those thoughts disappear.

Re:Limits on government

[node 3]

You just don't get it. The presidential election system in the US strongly favors two parties. It takes a lot of turmoil to create a viable third-party candidate, and once that turmoil is over with, you end up with two parties again (although not necessarily the same two as before--look into the birth of the Republican Party for precedent).

On the local level, things are different, but on the national level, third parties are spoilers and symbolic standard-bearers. That's not because they are any less legitimate, or because they are not superior candidates/parties, but BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED AGAINST THEM.

You are right that the Democratic Party is, on average, very centrist. There are also very liberal elements in the Democratic Party. If you want to make actual change, you've got to change the party itself, from within. Fighting them from without is a fool's errand. By fighting them from without, you become an ally of their enemies, and in our two party system, that makes you an unwitting ally of the Republicans. Congratulations.

Fighting them from without means they have to not only fight the right-wing nutjobs, but also you outsider left-wingers, who should be our allies. Certainly, Bill Clinton pulled some major bone-headed mistakes, but in no way is the DMCA or the bombing of Iraq anywhere near as bad as the bullshit the Republicans have pulled for the past 6 years, or a full-scale invasion and occupation of Iraq. Bill Clinton was far better for America, even with all his flaws, than George W. Bush has been.

What you want is a mythical candidate who does not exist. A candidate who will faithfully promote liberal ideals, who will not make any but the most forgivable of mistakes, and who has a chance of winning. I want that candidate as well, but I, unlike fantasy-land simpletons like yourself, whose hearts are in the right place, but their brains are nowhere to be found, have a firm grasp on reality.

Your last paragraph is absolutely astounding:

Still, better to piss away your vote so you can have a spineless do-nothing sleazebucket in office and feel powerful and righteous 'cause your team won, rather than, you know, vote for any sort of positive change. It's sure worked out in your Earnest Student Democrat favor the past two Presidential elections. Good going with that. And you've done better? All you done is *thwarted* any of the attempts at bettering the world that *actually have a chance of happening*. Instead of progress one-step-at-a-time, you want progress in one big step. The primary difference is one-step-at-a-time can actually happen.

Re:Limits on government

[Anonymous Coward]

"Soap" usually has no effect, as I'm sure anyone can see.
"Ballot" isn't feasible for large populations in a 2-party first-past-the-post system, even assuming the votes are counted correctly.
"Jury" is fine right up until the judge says "I don't think you were considering all the evidence, so I'm inverting the jury's decision".
"Ammo" worked back in the 18th century but today they'll just get federal agents to surround your house and burn it to the ground.

Any other bright ideas?

Re:Limits on government

[nugneant]

You just don't get it. The presidential election system in the US strongly favors two parties.

...because? Because that's how it's been through history? Sorry, I can't accept that answer. The world is flat, because through Western history, that's how it's been.

And you've done better? All you done is *thwarted* any of the attempts at bettering the world that *actually have a chance of happening*. Instead of progress one-step-at-a-time, you want progress in one big step. The primary difference is one-step-at-a-time can actually happen.

By what? Voting for Nader instead of the guy who invented the internet, stood by as the Clinton administration did their best to ham-fistedly force the web to confirm to the standards set upon by soccer mom's in the interests of their little Juniors? The guy with the PMRC wife? Keep working on your progress-one-step-at-a-time, since that's how civil liberties happened - certainly blacks didn't go from second-class citizens to constitutionally protected human beings in the span of seven years, no no, they wrote those letters into the constitution one at a time by electing shithead centrists over a period of two hundred years. You know, Wilson wrote "all human beings" and outlawed the use of barbed wire for lynchings. Then Coolidge wrote "regardless" and made it illegal to lynch a black person on a Tuesday. Hoover added the word "of" and added some oversight to make sure the Tuesday lynchers were being punished, as well as cut back on Thursday-Friday lynchings north of the Potomac. Roosevelt wrote "race" one letter at a time over the course of his tenure, and set forth policies to favor strong scolding instead of lynching. And so on and so on. That's totally how it works, and your insight has floored me.

I'll be voting for the party whose views represent my own, not for the party who promises they'll go up there into that office, take a deep breath, flex their flabby muscles and compromise.

The time to compromise and game the system was twenty years ago. Grow a spine.

Re:Limits on government

[StikyPad]

blah blah war, the rest of the world was forged by ponies using the pressure of rainbows.

Re:Limits on government

[KlomDark]

Oh, you live in Nebraska too?

Re:Limits on government

[petecarlson]

Does not exist.

CP

Re:Limits on government

[Pikoro]

Personally, I think that the Vice Pres running mate should be required to be from the opposing political party, just to keep things even (let the executive keep itself in czech a little more).

Re:Limits on government

[argux]

What you can do is something really extreme. Something so extreme you might not even be willing to do it. It will hurt, but if you organize and don't crave in, you might just force those people into rethinking how far they can push people. Here is my idea.

If people's opinions don't matter to your government, let's see what happens when it's the ISPs who refuse to apply the new rules. How to make this happen? By pressuring them. How to pressure them? Well, maybe you're already starting to imagine. Threaten to cancel you account. Call whomever you have to call and tell them that if by some date (let's say, a month from now), things are the same, that you'll cancel your account.

If enough people do this, and follow through, I bet they will be rethinking their position and 'find a way to make everyone happy.' If every American on Slashdot does this, and convinces their family and friends to do the same (explaining why, of course), I bet you can make some noise. Maybe you won't even have to actually cancel your internet account, because ISPs will hopefully act much sooner.

The key is getting organized. Remember, the internet is the people who make it. Shutting off the internet can only be done by the people. If those assholes up there want to take over, people can just not use it anymore, and find another way to connect to each other.

Re:Limits on government

[Anonymous Coward]

and it could be clearly argued that the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act violates those provisions in the Constitution designed to protect the individual from unreasonable governmental surveillance

I work with CALEA on a daily basis, so i can tell you that your statement above is completely full of shit. CALEA requires the service providers to have a standard method in place for LAWFULLY AUTHORIZED wiretaps to take place. Without this, many bad guys that should be taken off the streets would go free and many kidnap victims would die because of the time it takes to do it the old fashioned way, if that is even possible. Law enforcement still has to get a court order for a wiretap, and that is no easy task. CALEA merely provides the technology.

Think before you talk out of your ass...

Re:Limits on government

[EmagGeek]

You have just proven that not only do you know a bit about the US constitution, but that you in fact know more about the constitution than your average US Law School graduate.

Re:Limits on government

[vuffi_raa]

where in the bill of rights or the constitution does it say that all citizens have the "right to be free of terrorism" and doesn't that make the south guilty of violating civil rights... if you followed a little thing called the US civil war. Terrorism is a tactic- it is an adjective, not a noun. In this country we do not have the right to be free of terrorism or any other violent act- we should act on our best accord to prevent and prepare for events such as this whenever possible so long as this prevention falls within the bounds of the constitution and bill of rights. there is no war on terror. a war on terror cannot be won. terror is not a people or an ideology or a country. terror is a tactic. oh yeah btw: troop is plural I hate that one too- EG: 5 troops were killed in iraq - makes no sense

Re:Limits on government

[slothman32]

A "Law & Order" epidode was called "nullification".
It was about a group of people who considured themselves a seperate country and declared war on the US.
They went to a bank but in the process kill a "civilian", that is a non-gov't officer.
The show makes more sense than I do.
The killing part is what got them a trial.
His lawyer said "jury nullification" was the oldest method for the people, not the gov't or representatives, to determin law.
He ultimately got off.
I didn't hear it anywhere else until I saw the episode either.

P.S. I don't watch that show but as I was passing buy the guide I saw the title.
I decided to watch that one.

Re:Limits on government

[policy]

This is unbelievable. 9/11 was a blow to the United States on so many fronts, and regardless of my thoughts on policy surrounding terrorism and the Bush administration, the one area that frightens me the most is how Privacy rights are affected as a result of the terrorist attack. The patriot act has given our government so much control over our lives. This isn't the only access that the government has on its citizens, it now can scan financial documents, personal information from phone companies and cell phone services, internet web usage and surfing stats from ISPs? Where do you draw the line, at what point are we entirely safe? What about manipulation of the data and using information to blackmail citizens into cooperating? These are serious problems that could arise. Anyone remember "The Matrix" and how connected everyone was? There was nothing that was private in that fictional world, (theatrics and plot aside...)where is our privacy now? Would our founders have stood behind such policy?

Re:Limits on government

[insignificant_wrangl]

Blah, blah, totally agree. Show me one of these "historically stable" nations that hasn't engaged in war. Agonism is part of the human experience, wired into our psychology, and an unforntunately inevitable part of existence.

Re:Limits on government

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, because the U.S. has been becoming more and more democratized over the years (hint: it was originally a republic, and could now best be called a democratic republic). Coincidentally, the U.S. has also been going down the shitter for much of that time (hint: Benjamin Franklin said, "when the people find they can vote themselves money, that will spell the end of the republic," or words to that effect).

Re:Limits on government

[Syberghost]

Thanks for proving this was about deflecting blame onto the current administration.

Re:Limits on government

[StikyPad]

Of course we'll never get modded up, because it's not hip to point out reality when it interferes with some good MS/US/PS3 bashing.

suggestion

[toby]

Get a colo service, preferably in another country; OpenVPN to it and use a web proxy running on it. Not perfect, but better than nothing.

Interestingly, this is the same kind of solution often resorted to by residents of those countries usually tagged as 'repressive regimes' by the good ole U.S. of A. Make ya think, at all?

Re:suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Relakks.com? I used it for a little while just to see how it was, terrible the first month but surprisingly fast after the hype died down and they got their infrastructure running better. Was quite amazing to just browse the web and have everything loading pretty much as fast as normal cable, even with all the packets being routed from me to Sweden, the destination, back to Sweden and then back to me again. I was quite impressed.

Re:suggestion

[cabinetsoft]

Get a colo service, preferably in another country

or just move there...

Re:suggestion

[someone1234]

Yeah, it will be quite useful when Sweden will let the FBI to monitor their net too. Special priority to relocation services.

Re:suggestion

[J'raxis]

Are there any services like this located in known "shelter"/"haven" countries like Luxembourg, Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, and so on? These countries are already pretty well-versed in giving the finger to tax authorities around the world and protecting client confidentiality in other ways; what about ISPs?

Re:suggestion

[DrMrLordX]

An old friend of mine had the idea of setting up colocation services on Native American reservations. They have virtual immunity from state and local laws, but I'm not sure how much protection they'd offer from federal law.

Re:suggestion

[kanweg]

With one smoke cloud equivalent to one bit, it might not be as popular as one might think.

Bert
Who is considering encryption in the Navaho language

Re:suggestion

[iminplaya]

Make ya think, at all?

Won't help. Tuesday is wiretap your brain stem day.

Re:suggestion

[iminplaya]

Everything in modulation, my friend. It is truly amazing what can be packed into a single cycle of the carrier wave.

Re:suggestion

[Antique Geekmeister]

SSL private keys and SSH private keys can and have been stolen from remotely deployed systems and used for man-in-the-middle monitoring. And a penetrated router or smart switch on the *internal* side of the OpenVPN is a common approach for really sophisticated crackers to tap all your traffic *after* it's been decrypted by the VPN system.

Weven where communications are more secure at the application layer, most people simply click on the "do you accept this key" buttons when making an encrypted connection, which makes such monitoring even easier because the user in the field winds up using the man-in-the-middle's public keys, instead of the target destination's public keys. I saw this about six years ago in a rather clever router reconfiguration to minotor all SSH traffic to a victim's internal network administration servers. We only noticed it when I got brought in to see why there were such large latencies on incoming traffic, and dumped the configuration to plain text and actually *read* it, along with noticing that the previous admin had never bothered to install and enable the SSH tools. Then I found out he had been programming it, via telnet, from his laptop on the road.

We had a long, private talk before I went to the company president with the analysis. He hadn't been allowed the time or resources to do things more securely, and his manager had been saying "we have a firewall, we can trust people inside the network" and had denied this engineer's attempts to do things more securely. It would have been a lot cheaper to do it right than to have me try to clean up the mess later, but it's often difficult to get people to do things right.

If you think a colo service is robust protection, then go ahead and check how many of your colo setups have encrypted file systems, password protected boot loaders, and password protected BIOS's, just to start with. Then compare what you could do with the same money and resources to secure your systems against rootkits, implement proper password management, etc.

Re:suggestion

[GammaKitsune]

http://www.xkcd.com/c257.html

Re:suggestion

[Bent Mind]

The thought has crossed my mind more than once. However, I had enough problems moving between states. I can't imagine the difficulties once you bring immigration laws into play.

Bot me up, baby...

[Itninja]

I want to create a bot will do nothing but search for, and then go to, 'illegal' sites. I figure if it hits a few porn sites, maybe an offshore gambling site, and *any* site in Arabic that should be enough. If we get enough of these bot going it should create so much white noise that the g-men couldn't tell the real stuff from the botted stuff. Or maybe I won't. y'know, whatever...

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[mcrbids]

So, do it. It's an open-source world, after all. Write something together - a simple perl script, perhaps - and release it! You just might be surprised at what happens, and you're pretty much guaranteed to learn something, if only how to code something in perl!

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[J'raxis]

Hah, like the old trick of including suspicious keywords in your email signature to fuck with Echelon, eh?

Something as simple as a Perl script googling for suspicious keywords (e.g., "kiddie porn", "assassinate president", "jihadi", "moqawama", "site:.sa", "site:.lb", ...) and then fetching some/all the results at random would do what you want.

Look into the LWP::Simple and HTML::LinkExtor Perl modules to get started. Make sure you set the user-agent line to something like Internet Explorer or Firefox uses, use random sleep()s to make requests look like human downloading, &c.

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[suv4x4]

I want to create a bot will do nothing but search for, and then go to, 'illegal' sites. I figure if it hits a few porn sites, maybe an offshore gambling site, and *any* site in Arabic that should be enough. If we get enough of these bot going it should create so much white noise that the g-men couldn't tell the real stuff from the botted stuff. Or maybe I won't. y'know, whatever...

So in short, if under surveillance, perform every crime you could possibly conceive! That's confuse the surveillance team and it'll do absolutely nothing about it.

That bot of yours. Could I possibly load it with some adware with my affiliate id? Cause I think, we got ourselvses some brand spanking new business model.

"Feeling repressed? Show your government what you think: install the FREE F*R*E*E FREE RebelBot today! It's FREE as well, did we say that."

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[Repton]

Yeah! The false positive rates will be so high the government will have no choice but to kill the programme! It'll be just like the no-fly list!

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[aussie_a]

So in short, if under surveillance, perform every crime you could possibly conceive! Looking at porn and going to gambling sites as well as harmless arabic sites is a crime in America? Wow, I never knew America was so repressive. So much for being the land of the free.

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[AresTheImpaler]

So in short, if under surveillance, perform every crime you could possibly conceive! That's confuse the surveillance team and it'll do absolutely nothing about it.

He's not performing any crime at all.. It's still not illegal to just browse any of the pages that he said:
few porn sites, maybe an offshore gambling site, and *any* site in Arabic that should be enough

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[Hal_Porter]

Why would you want to do that though? The police are trying to catch terrorists and you're making the job harder. And they'll probably find some way to screw you if you do it, and it will end up making everyone less free.

Seriously, it's the high tech equivalent of yelling fire falsely in a crowded theatre. And these days, the government will overreact in some insane way like banning theatres.

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[iminplaya]

Naw, that's just what they're expecting you to do. If you really want to freak them out, unplug your computer and go to Vegas, or take a nice cruise around the Mediterranean.

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[dotgain]

Your comment is at odds with the 09 F9 in your .sig

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[HostAdmin]

>Yeah! The false positive rates will be so high the government will have no choice but to kill the programme! It'll be just like the no-fly list!

Sure. Then the feds can declare some kind of digital martial law. Only your preferred deity only knows what kind of havoc they'll create after that.

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[Hal_Porter]

Pirated HDDVDs won't blow me to bits.

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[yabos]

Not a crime but if they're really monitoring everyone it could be enough for them to screw with your life like put you on the terrorist watch list. Try flying on any airline then.

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[Alsee]

the land of the free.

Hey hey there! Don't you go butchering a treasured American phrase! The proper phrase is:

The land of the free and the home of the brave.

In fact just a few days ago on Slashdot I happened to write about my strong feelings on the bravery and behavior of so many of may fellow Americans, particularly in the wake of 9/11. And it just so happens to be relevant to the internet surveillance topic as well.

-

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[Chowderbags]

No, it's the high tech equivalent of writing some threatening remarks (in jest) in big bold letters on a piece of paper and then sending it through the mail. Yeah, if it's found out, you could be in hot water, but unless there's a warrant that piece of mail should never be looked at by the police. If you send that letter over the internet instead of through the USPO, it doesn't mean that it should be any easier for the powers that be to peruse your communication.

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[Anonymous Coward]

Write a bot to loop searches for "revolutionary communist party or america" and "how to make a bomb" over and over again.

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[jZnat]

Neither will terrorists. You're far more likely to be struck and killed by lightning than killed by a terrorist. I'd rather be killed by a terrorist (which ain't going to happen) than be a slave to the US government and its corporate sponsors.

$164

[mastershake_phd]

$164 to find out how to comply with the law? That cant be right. I suppose you could read the law they passed, but I hear most of congress doesnt even do that.

Re:$164

[__aaclcg7560]

It's call nickling-and-diming the public. Unless Joe Blow Public have a financial stake in this process, he'll probably won't fork out the cash to see what it is or hire a lobbyist. The law may have enough legal jargon that it doesn't make sense without having a lawyer explaining it. Joe Blow can't start a grassroot movement when the price of learning enough to do something about it is too high.

Re:$164

[automatique]

How to I bump this one up several notches to 5, which means 'F-in Hilarious!'

Re:$164

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that uncommon. Here in SC you have to pay to have access to the law. It is copyrighted and the state vigorously protects that copyright. In 1998 I was threatened by the state AG's office for having a copy of a .doc file on my web site that quoted a section of the state's vehicle laws. Us peons aren't allowed access to the laws. Knowledge of the law is only for the protected lawyer class.

I still find it amusing that a friend of mine at the time disagreed with the thuggish tactics they used but is now OK w/ denying commoners access to the law. The difference is that he recently graduated from Duke law school. He is now very anti-Constitution, anti-EFF (despite having donated money to them several years ago!), and very pro-Democrat.

The text from the SC law:

"The State of South Carolina owns the copyright to the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, as contained herein. Any use of the text, section headings, or catchlines of the 1976 Code is subject to the terms of federal copyright and other applicable laws and such text, section headings, or catchlines may not be reproduced in whole or in part in any form or for inclusion in any material which is offered for sale or lease without the express written permission of the Chairman of the South Carolina Legislative Council or the Code Commissioner of South Carolina."

They consider distribution for free on a web site a sale for $0 so that makes it illegal without written permission. I tried to obtain permission and after making around four dozen phone calls and two trips to Columbia, SC, I finally gave-up.

Re:$164

[Fez]

Oh that's nothing, check this part out:

Section 109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief

CALEA section 109(b) permits a "telecommunications carrier," as that term is defined by CALEA, to file a petition with the FCC and an application with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to request that DOJ pay the costs of the carrier's CALEA compliance ... First, the carrier must file a section 109(b)(1) petition with the FCC
[...]
Please note that a filing fee of $5,000.00 is required to accompany all CALEA section 109(b)(1) petitions filed with the FCC. (Emphasis mine)

They want you to pay $5,000 to file a request for financial assistance! How ridiculous is that?!

Re:$164

[Anonymous Coward]

The text from the SC law: ... That is another $164 you owe us.

Love and kisses,
Henry McMaster
South Carolina Attorney General's Office

Re:$164

[Compholio]

It's not that uncommon. Here in SC you have to pay to have access to the law. It is copyrighted and the state vigorously protects that copyright.

I don't know if a state counts as an entity of the United States Government, but it seems to me like it would. So, your state cannot copyright anything because of an over-riding federal law. My understanding was that the reason for that law was to prevent the exact problem you're experiencing.

Re:$164

[Anonymous Coward]

I found it pretty hard to believe that SC actually prevents free public access to its code of laws. While I don't doubt the original poster had a problem at one time, the code is available here. They go on to say that material from the aforementioned Web site "may be copied from this website at the reader's expense and effort without need for permission."

Re:$164

[Alsee]

In 1998...

There has since been a court ruling against copyrighting law. I did a Search of SC law for the term COPYRIGHT and only got five hits.... none of which have any relation to the "text from the SC law" that you quoted. Maybe the law you quoted did exist in 1998, but it does not appear to exist now. They may have specifically repealed it in response to the court ruling on the subject.

-

Re:$164

[Anonymous Coward]

And looking on the South Caronlina statehouse website gave me lots of information, such as

SECTION 1-1-689. Official State popular music.
Beach music is designated as the official state popular music of South Carolina.

and

SECTION 1-1-676. Official State lowcountry handcraft.
The sweet grass basket is the official state lowcountry handcraft.

http://www.scstatehouse.net/CODE/t01c001.htm

Amendment IV

[poor_boi]

Amendtment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re:Amendment IV

[DreadSpoon]

"Public and private communications" is not within that Ammendment, you might notice.

Scanning Internet packets also does not constitute either a search nor a seizure. You are already passing the information through the ISP. All the new law requires is that the ISP willingly pass over any of that information to the FBI upon issuance of a warrant.

Re:Amendment IV

[koreth]

Don't be naive. Here are two workarounds off the top of my head, either of which would be solid enough to be repeated ad nauseum to the nodding masses on talk shows: 1) It's not unreasonable to search and seize whatever we have to, if it means keeping the public safe from another 9/11. 2) We have probable cause to believe that terror cells are operating somewhere in the US, and the Internet is the place it's holding its meetings.

The Constitution has never been much of an obstacle to people in power. Hell, if the past is any indication, they'll probably find some way to twist the commerce clause to allow it; that seems to be the "feds get to do whatever the hell they want" section of the Constitution.

Re:Amendment IV

[iminplaya]

You can knock people over head with the law all you want, and all you will do is knock them unconscious. Ignore the government and take it up with the people around you. Remember, many of them think the bill of rights "grants" too much freedom. That is what you're up against. The government is just the result, not the cause.

Re:Amendment IV

[vmfedor]

Just playing devil's advocate, really, but this law technically doesn't violate the rights of anybody because it only gives the government more mobility in doing something it already has the reasonable right to do. What *they're* saying is that they want to make it easier on themselves in the rare cases they have to use it, which I technically agree with, however what *I* feel is that if you make something like this easy then it'll be abused far more often. The answer, though, probably lies somewhere in the middle.

However, even if only *1* unreasonable wiretap is carried out this begins to violate the 5th amendment. Until then, though, they're in "full compliance" with the Constitution.

Re:Amendment IV

[Anonymous Coward]

Scanning Internet packets also does not constitute either a search nor a seizure.

In my history class, we had a lesson one day about how for hundreds of years, whenever you wanted to move your data from one place to another, there were businesses that specialized in moving these things, and you gave them your data and they took it wherever you wanted them to take it... what were they called? Oh, right, post offices. The founding fathers thought that scanning people's mail without a warrant wasn't appropriate, and I see no reason why it's different now just because the messages are electronic.

Re:Amendment IV

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that protection only applies to the United States Postal Service, and does not apply to privatized postal services like FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.

Last time I checked, Qwest, Verizon, and the like are not run by the government.

On the internet, there should be no assumption of privacy. Your data is moving right along with EVERYONE elses data across the same lines and visible to pretty much everyone at any point along the way. The only way around this is to actually encrypt your data at all times, at which point it is still sitting right next to everything else but not readable immediately. At this point, if anything ever does happen, you could always argue for Fourth & Fifth Ammendment protection, as your communications were intended to be private.

Re:Amendment IV

[starfishsystems]

Exactly. As a result CALEA requires that a network provider:

• Perform an intercept as specified in a court order signed by a judge in good standing.
• Not perform an intercept on any other network traffic but that specified.

The complete text is at http://www.askcalea.net/docs/calea.pdf.

Section 103 covers the above points. On the subject of how CALEA expects to treat encrypted communications, it also contains the following passage:

A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government's ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication.

Re:Amendment IV

[sgt_doom]

Remember, many of them think the bill of rights "grants" too much freedom.

This sentiment derives from several polls taken - but what wasn't elucidated from those polls was the background of the pollees.

The majority of those stating the bill of rights "grants" too much freedom were of Eastern European ancestry, and such an ethnic background strongly accented their responses.

Democracy in America should never back imbued with any Eastern European thinking, which is anathema to the Magna Carta and the basis for Western Democracy. A Pole or an Albanian isn't the measurement of human freedom and dignity. (Never could stand this groups, anyway.....they are also overrepresented in wife-beating groups as well.)

Re:Amendment IV

[iminplaya]

Yeah, I ran across a few things that confirm that. I'm afraid these ideals have a way of spreading like a virus, and it's starting to show with the kind of people being elected into high office. Freedom is hardly a voting issue these days. It's all being overwhelmed by "I want my tax cut" and "We must hunt down the "terrorists", where ever they hide." They consider the collateral damage to be acceptable. None of this belies the fact that we are responsible for what's happening, and you can see the results on the TV every day. The government isn't putting Bill O'Reilly on a pedestal, we are. He feeds our fears and hate. That's what he's paid to do and the numbers speak volumes

Re:Amendment IV

[zCyl]

Scanning Internet packets also does not constitute either a search nor a seizure.

Under what abuse of the English language is that not a search? Is requiring the Pony Express rider to hand over each letter of mine to be "scanned" not a search?

All the new law requires is that the ISP willingly pass over any of that information to the FBI upon issuance of a warrant.

If this were being done with proper warrants, no one would be complaining. The Constitution already permits search and seizure of just about any evidence which is authorizd by a warrant which in turn is supported by probable cause.

It's spying on the innocent or the masses without specific cause to spy on each individual which is a dangerous abuse of power.

Please do not rationalize away these basic protections of freedom.

Re:Amendment IV

[zCyl]

1) It's not unreasonable to search and seize whatever we have to, if it means keeping the public safe from another 9/11.

Yes it is unreasonable. The next revolutionary war to regain the basic freedom to think what we want and organize anti-establishment political movements could result in a lot more bloodshed than 9/11 ever did. It's much safer for our children to keep those freedoms now than to let them be taken away, and as a nice bonus, they would get to live somewhere worth living.

2) We have probable cause to believe that terror cells are operating somewhere in the US, and the Internet is the place it's holding its meetings.

Criminals and murderers have been operating in the U.S. for a very long time. Discarding the Bill of Rights because two buildings were knocked down is profoundly naive. Get a more realistic perspective of the relative importance of these two things.

Don't be naive.

How did reminding people that the highest law of the land supports basic personal freedom become naive???

Re:Amendment IV

[Chowderbags]

Perhaps you should read up on Katz v. United States. The fourth ammendment doesn't just protect a place (i.e. your home), it protects you. So long as you can justifiably believe that your communication will be private (and yes, we all know the internet is insecure, but we still think that most of what we send isn't being looked into), then you are protected from the police looking into what you're doing.

not cool

[Anonymous Coward]

those who give up freedoms for security get neither security nor freedom. these morons work for us not the other way around damn it...

and..

[SQLz]

Using this technology, we'll be able to detect and weed out people who disagree with the current adminstration. That way, the US will be restored to its former glory.

Re:and..

[Archtech]

"Using this technology, we'll be able to detect and weed out people who disagree with the current adminstration. That way, the US will be restored to its former glory".

Typo alert! Don't you mean "agree"?

Re:and..

[Alsee]

Ahhh... but you overlooked something. The law has an inbuilt process for ISPs to file delays on implementing the system, and many if not most major ISPs have filed for such deferrals. It is going to another year probably two before everything is really up and running.

Just in time to this technology to detect and weed out people who disagree with the HILLARY administration, and to restore the US to its former glory.

Muahahahahahaha!

-

Re:and..

[Fweeky]

Won't the populace get a little suspicious when 180 million of them disappear at the exact same time McDonalds starts doing a "20 burgers for the price of 1" deal?

encrypt all your traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

with the key 09 F9...

Re:encrypt all your traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

that number is too famous and might be one of the first brute force attempts. use guidgen instead.

Re:encrypt all your traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

But there's no key management issue if everyone has the same key. The idea is to stay just as plaintext as we are now among ourselves, but illegal to decrypt for the government.

So the next step

[Z00L00K]

is a requirement for all internet traffic to be unencrypted so that the agencies throughout the world can read your emails, IM and torrent downloads.

Save us from the "big brother" mentality, since then the terrorists of the world have won by letting the governments take over to make things miserable for the citizens.

A government shall serve the citizens, not the other way around. Sometimes the people in government should be taking a step back and consider what is really the consequences of the actions.

Re:So the next step

[J'raxis]

This law actually makes a special exception for encrypted data:

Section 103(b)(3) ENCRYPTION- A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government's ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication.

Full text here.

Re:So the next step

[NinjaNoh]

Hey Z00L00K! Come check out the inside of this van! Don't mind the big letters "F" "B" "I", this van was purchased used from a pizza shop.

They made blue pizzas.

With un-feathered chickens as the topping.

The chickens were bred to look like eagles.

Just get in the van.

Re:So the next step

[Torvaun]

Pity. This could be a social engineers dream. Walk into an ISP, look official, and get all the packets to and from addresses assigned to the US government. Something about a counterspy program or something ought to get you in. Now, start posting things on random forums that us regular citizens aren't supposed to know about. It'd be a bitch to try and catch all of it.

Re:So the next step

[cp.tar]

There you go, people... your government is just making you use really strong encryption. Always.

In other words, it'll be good for you.

/me ducks

Re:So the next step

[J'raxis]

Hopefully this will drive people and information service providers to use encryption wherever they can. Web (SSL/HTTPS), SMTP ("STARTTLS" over port 25 or SSMTP over port 465), IMAPS, POPS, SSH, VPN (SSL or IPsec), and so on. Some IRC servers and IM protocols offer SSL connections. There're a few encrypted p2p services such as Freenet or I2P. Practically all your basic Internet services can be encrypted nowadays; for the rest, there's SSH tunneling to a safe place so the plaintext traffic doesn't originate from your box/network.

Re:So the next step

[aussie_a]

Which is why its the next step, not this step.

Re:So the next step

[bmo]

"Hopefully this will drive people and information service providers to use encryption wherever they can."

Of the general population of the US, only the technically minded minority will do that.

Seriously. Try to talk to someone who thinks that the Internet is the IE icon (really, a co-worker keeps saying this) and all you'll get is glazed eyeballs and a "I don't get it. It's too complicated. I have nothing to hide" reaction.

Such people can't even be trusted to keep their anti-malware software for Windows up to date. You think the general public is going to start encrypting everything suddenly because of this?

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin

Only if encryption gets as transparent as the fish:// ioslave in KDE will it get serious adoption, and even then it will have to be enabled by default. Don't expect Microsoft to lead the way in this department.

--
BMO

Re:So the next step

[cp.tar]

You think the general public is going to start encrypting everything suddenly because of this?

If by this you mean these new regulations, then no, the general public will not start encrypting everything.

They will eventually realize that unencrypted traffic is like sending postcards instead of letters and like yelling in a town square instead of making a phonecall (though I remember seeing people using a phone in a town square, yelling so loudly I thought they didn't really need the phone in the first place. But I digress.)

If no sooner, then when governments and their agencies start abusing their self-awarded authority to wiretap in such a manner that even the general public wouldn't swallow that. And while I agree that the general public can swallow quite a lot, the gagging point is almost quantum in nature - one moment, there is not a sign of it anywhere; the other, it punches you in the face.

Re:So the next step

[bmo]

"They will eventually realize that unencrypted traffic is like sending postcards instead of letters and like yelling in a town square instead of making a phonecall (though I remember seeing people using a phone in a town square, yelling so loudly I thought they didn't really need the phone in the first place....)"

I must be a cynical bastard because I see that what you say in the first half is contradicted in the second half of what you wrote. People don't know or care how wide open most communication is. Let's take cordless phones. For the longest time, they were simple part 15 devices that didn't frequency hop (DSS) were pure analog (as opposed to digital), and broadcast everything in the clear in easy to tune frequencies. Only when DSS was available would I consider cordless phones "safe". 20 years ago I tried explaining this to my _parents_ about cordless phones WRT scanners. No traction. Zero. And my dad isn't technically illiterate.

His sister still uses a 20 year old cordless. She won't upgrade.

Most people assume that nobody will ever listen. Got a baby monitor? You might be very entertaining to your neighbors. Personally I don't have a scanner. I don't want to know. I _really_ don't want to know. But that's just me.

"the gagging point is almost quantum in nature - one moment, there is not a sign of it anywhere; the other, it punches you in the face."

You have much more faith in fellow human beings than I do. People will "swallow camels and strain at gnats."

Quote from someone probably smarter than me long ago. Written down in a book that's kinda popular.

'Tis the way of the world.

--
BMO

Re:So the next step

[J'raxis]

There's more than one definition of "drive."

My employer is in the process of migrating all of us from one email system to another. The new email system does not support plaintext IMAP, POP, or SMTP access. We're also migrating all our websites to new servers; the ones that require authorization forcibly redirect to the HTTPS version of the site.

This is the same route ISPs could take. An HTTP->HTTPS redirect for the company website is transparent to the end-user. For services like email, they can provide detailed instructions on how to reconfigure user agents to use the encrypted ports (even Outlook supports them), then after a migration period, shut down the plaintext ports.

Re:So the next step

[Bob Gelumph]

So when will slashdot enable https://slashdot.org?

Re:So the next step

[slashqwerty]

This is the same route ISPs could take. An HTTP->HTTPS redirect for the company website is transparent to the end-user.

Unfortunately, we have sites like Slashdot which redirect right back to HTTP. Web sites don't want to support encryption when it means running twice as many web servers.

Re:So the next step

[J'raxis]

Yes, in my comment I was specifically talking about websites that the ISP owns: company website, support site, whatever. Obviously not something an ISP's customers spend a lot of time at, but every little migration to HTTPS helps.

Slashdot has the HTTPS server for signing up for subscriptions, I believe. Since HTTPS adds a bit of overheard to do the encryption, supporting site-wide HTTPS for a busy site like Slashdot would probably require a lot more hardware, so that's probably why they push ordinary browsing back to HTTP. Kuro5hin is nicely browsable entirely through HTTPS; they set up HTTPS for similar reasons but don't force people off of it for browsing the site.

It's not twice as many webservers, it's the same server (both in the hardware and software sense) with two <VirtualHost> blocks and an extra port open.

Re:So the next step

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an area where open source developers can really make a difference.

Can you imagine if every Apache installation came, by default, with SSL access enabled? (They'd use automatic self-signed keys -- not great security, but immeasurably better than plaintext everywhere.)

Web browsers could default to https rather than http, IM clients could encrypt and only fallback to plaintext, email clients could generate a key for you and make it easy to use. It's so simple, and a lot of the people with an understanding of computer security/privacy work on these projects. It doesn't have to make anything less convenient; failures to connect would just result in connecting to legacy (non-secure) counterparts. It can happen easily; we just need to start doing it.

Re:So the next step

[Alsee]

This law actually makes a special exception for encrypted data

Hahahaha. Yes, thank god there is an exception for encrypted data!

For anyone out there who finds it difficult to real legalese, or who may be unfamiliar with the technical issues of cryptography involved here, allow me to translate that "exception" into plain English. It effectively says:

This law does not require companies to do things that are effectively impossible to do, nor does this law require companies to provide information that they do not have.

There are two possibilities. Either that exception in the law has absolutely no effect, or the language of the law prior to that exception was so screwed up that it would have criminalized ALL covered companies for failing to do the impossible.

-

Re:So the next step

[ScrewMaster]

About forty-odd years ago I discovered, quite by accident, that my neighbors had a baby monitor that just happened to transmit on the same frequency as the Radio Shack walkie-talkie I had. At least, I'm assuming it was a baby monitor, maybe their house was bugged, I don't know. Well, it was bugged all right, the only question was whether or not they did it to themselves. Anyway, I could hear a woman's voice cooing to a baby, and I could hear a man's voice in the background.

So when the couple left the room I waited for a while, then turned on my transmitter and in my best Satanic voice rumbled, "You're all going to die!" Both parents came tearing back to the room so fast I was sure they'd left rug burns on the carpet. I was doubled over with laughter, but then again I've always been a bit of a practical joker. The opportunity was just too good to pass up.

I told my father about it (well, minus the "you're all going to die!" part) and I think he went over there to have a little talk with them. He was a physicist and electronics engineer and I presume they took him seriously, because the thing wasn't broadcasting after that. Good thing for them: I wasn't the only kid in the neighborhood with a walkie-talkie.

Like you, I'm not particularly voyeuristic (I prefer to maintain my illusions about other people) but there are plenty of folks out there for whom that cannot be said, and who will use anything you say against you. I might add that many of them work for government.

The unfortunate truth is that it doesn't matter whether or not you think you have something to hide. In the current legal climate, we all have something to hide. We can all be nailed for something, however insignificant it may seem to us, if someone wants us badly enough. Granted, most of the new electronic surveillance laws and technologies are ostensibly anti-terrorism measures, but as always they'll be applied indiscriminately and inappropriately, and in ways never intended by their authors.

Re:So the next step

[J'raxis]

The law could have been written to say they can't legally transmit encrypted data, or that encryption keys must be made available to law enforcement in order to decrypt encrypted data (see the UK's RIP Act).

Imagine if you're an telecom provider, a cop's trying to wiretap a customer of yours, who's using encryption, and this provision didn't explicitly exist. CALEA says you're required to provide the data to the cops, and you didn't. What, exactly, is your liability here? What would your legal department advise? How would some overzealous prosecutor interpret the law when he realized his case was torpedoed by the suspect's use of encryption?

Perhaps after a few incidents such as the above, telecom providers would start attempting to block transmission of encrypted data, in order to shield themselves against potential liability "just in case." Perhaps "legitimate" (as defined by corporate America) usages of encryption would still be permitted (HTTPS to well-known websites such as banking sites), but other things such as PGP/MIME email or SSH to arbitrary hosts would be blocked, again, "just in case."

Therefore, this provision needs to exist in order to make sure none of the above possibilities come to pass.

Also, carefully reading the provision, it does say telecom providers are required to decrypt communications if possible (in other words, if they do in fact possess the keys to do so). So the provision certainly goes beyond simply stating the obvious.

Re:So the next step

[Anonymous Coward]

I have plenty to hide.
Social Security number, Bank account number, credit card number, ANY Personal Information, and ANY information that I deem not public.

I'm a Private Citizen, not a Public Celebrity.

Re:So the next step

[jZnat]

Phone calls aren't encrypted (and I don't believe you're allowed to encrypt it anyhow due to wiretap laws or something), so that's not exactly a great example. Maybe sending secure mail would work better as an analogy (or since this is /., a car analogy of some sort).

Re:So the next step

[jZnat]

Once you get a subscription. I use it all the time.

Re:So the next step

[StikyPad]

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin

Either half of them are more stupid than average, or somebody's too stupid to understand the difference between median and average.

Re:So the next step

[Hooya]

when people say "i've got nothing to hide..", i usually come back with "well then when can i come by and install a webcam in your bedroom?" most shut up. some mention privacy. my point exactly.

Telecommunications services only

[J'raxis]

It's important to note that CALEA doesn't apply to "information services" or "electronic messaging services", only "telecommunications". Here are the relevant parts of the actual law:

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title--
[...]
(4) The term `electronic messaging services' means software-based services that enable the sharing of data, images, sound, writing, or other information among computing devices controlled by the senders or recipients of the messages.
[...]
(6) The term `information services'--
(A) means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications; and
(B) includes--
(i) a service that permits a customer to retrieve stored information from, or file information for storage in, information storage facilities;
(ii) electronic publishing; and
(iii) electronic messaging services;
[...]
(b) LIMITATIONS-
[...]
(2) INFORMATION SERVICES; PRIVATE NETWORKS AND INTERCONNECTION SERVICES AND FACILITIES- The requirements of subsection (a) do not apply to--
(A) information services
[...]

Re:Telecommunications services only

[starfishsystems]

This is true, but our interpretation is that it simply means that CALEA does not require a provider to develop a specific intercept capability for those services. In other words, if a provider operates some sort of message board system, the provider does not have to develop some kind of surveillance interface for it.

However, the provider does have to perform surveillance on the traffic between its subscribers and that system per CALEA section 103, which amounts to the same thing. Now imagine that traffic to and from the message board is encrypted. CALEA section 104 does not in general require decryption capability but makes a specific exception when "encryption was provided by the carrier".

Re:Telecommunications services only

[J'raxis]

But only if the provider is a telecommunications service in some way, shape, or form, right? If a business is purely an information or electronic messaging service provider (e.g., a webmail provider, hosting provider), would you interpret such a business as subject to CALEA? If so, how?

Now, for companies that do provide both types of services (e.g., broadband ISP that also provides customers with email, webspace, whatever), in which the latter services' data travels over the former's wires, I wonder if they could protect themselves by spinning off the latter services into a subsidiary, affiliate, or some other kind of quasi-independent entity not legally a "part" of the telecom provider.

Re:Telecommunications services only

[starfishsystems]

Well, here's the thing. Unless there's some way to connect with the service, it isn't much use to anyone. Imagine that it's just a device sitting on the net somewhere, and packets are going back and forth to it. If you ask the service provider what do those packets really mean, and the provider can truthfully say "I dunno" then, in my understanding, CALEA has no application. So it would be on a backbone router, for example.

Where CALEA has traction, however, is at the edge of the network. The rationale for extending CALEA to broadband was that broadband subscribers are essentially like dialup subscribers, so if surveillance is permitted for the POTS network it should be okay here as well. At this point in the network, there is a mapping between an individually identified subscriber and his or her traffic. After all, this is how network providers can bill for services.

All of this is essentially restating your comments, just to be sure we're on the same ground. Now, the interesting and perhaps contentious part is what exactly constitutes the edge of the network. What if that device sitting on the net somewhere isn't just passing uninterpreted packets? What if it's providing, say, encrypted file storage? If there is any notion of "subscriber" to that service, then there will be packet traffic to and from that device which is particularly associated with that subscriber. Then CALEA applies, and under section 105 the provider must not just capture but also decrypt the traffic upon lawful authorization. (Apologies for my previous post which cited section 104 for this.)

Frequently misunderstood questions

[Anonymous Coward]

From the askCALEA FAQs:
http://www.askcalea.net/faq_answers/020_faq.html

Frequently Misunderstood Questions

On March 17, 2004, we published a press release regarding our joint petition.

Q: Does the petition for CALEA rulemaking propose to apply CALEA to all types of online communication, including instant messaging and visits to websites?

A: No. The petition proposes CALEA coverage of only broadband Internet access service and broadband telephony service. Other Internet-based services, including those classified as "information services" such as email and visits to websites, would not be covered.

Q: Does the petition propose extensive retooling of existing broadband networks that could impose significant costs?

A: No. The petition contends that CALEA should apply to certain broadband services but does not address the issue of what technical capabilities those broadband providers should deliver to law enforcement. CALEA already permits those service providers to fashion their own technical standards as they see fit. If law enforcement considers an industry technical standard deficient, it can seek to change the standard only by filing a special "deficiency" petition before the Commission. It is the FCC, not law enforcement, that decides whether any capabilities should be added to the standard. The FCC may refuse to order a change in a standard on many different grounds. For example, a capability may be rejected because it is too costly. Therefore CALEA already contains protections for industry against paying undue compliance costs.

Q: Did law enforcement ask the FCC to curtail its usual review process to implement the petition?

A: No. Law enforcement asked the FCC to give the proposed rulemaking expedited treatment. Such treatment is often requested and granted when urgent matters are brought to the FCC's attention. Some FCC rulemaking proceedings can take years to complete. Law enforcement believes expedited treatment is warranted in this case based on evidence that terrorists, criminals, and/or spies are already exploiting the networks of broadband communication providers to evade lawful electronic surveillance.

Q: Is Law enforcement trying to dictate how the Internet should be engineered to permit whatever level of surveillance law enforcement deems necessary?

A: No. Law enforcement does not seek the power to dictate how the Internet should be engineered or even to decide how broadband communications networks should be engineered. As explained above, CALEA already allocates those decisions to industry and any resulting capability disputes between industry and law enforcement are decided by the FCC. Moreover, the level of surveillance is not an issue raised in the petition, is not within the scope of CALEA, and is not decided by law enforcement. Based on a statute known as "Title III," before a law enforcement agent or officer is permitted to engage in lawful electronic surveillance, he or she must seek an appropriate court order from a judge or magistrate. Only if a judicial order is issued can the lawful surveillance take place, and the level of surveillance is prescribed by the order.

Q: Does the petition ignore the letter or spirit of CALEA's "information services" exemption by seeking to apply CALEA to such services?

A: No. The petition notes that CALEA contains a definition of "telecommunications carrier" that is different from and broader than the definition of that term in the Communications Act, which governs most FCC actions. The petition therefore asks the FCC to decide the scope of CALEA coverage based on the CALEA definition, not the Communications Act definition. As a result, some carriers classified as "information service" providers for purposes of the Communications Act would be simultaneously deemed "telecommunications carriers" for purposes of CALEA.

Q: Would the petition force carriers

Re:Frequently misunderstood questions

[kcbrown]

Translated:

A: No. The petition proposes CALEA coverage of only broadband Internet access service and broadband telephony service. Other Internet-based services, including those classified as "information services" such as email and visits to websites, would not be covered.

"Nevermind the fact that monitoring all broadband internet access is sufficient to include any services that might be accessed over that broadband service (like email, visits to websites, etc). Oh, and you should conveniently forget that web sites and email services also make use of broadband internet connections to provide their services, so monitoring can/will happen at either end."

A: No. The petition contends that CALEA should apply to certain broadband services but does not address the issue of what technical capabilities those broadband providers should deliver to law enforcement. CALEA already permits those service providers to fashion their own technical standards as they see fit. If law enforcement considers an industry technical standard deficient, it can seek to change the standard only by filing a special "deficiency" petition before the Commission. It is the FCC, not law enforcement, that decides whether any capabilities should be added to the standard. The FCC may refuse to order a change in a standard on many different grounds. For example, a capability may be rejected because it is too costly. Therefore CALEA already contains protections for industry against paying undue compliance costs.

"Law enforcement (that would be us) can and will install whatever monitoring hardware and software is necessary to perform the monitoring in question, and if it can't it will get the standards changed to force the ISP into making it easy for us. And since we and the FCC are both part of the executive branch, such changes will be easy and fast."

A: No. Law enforcement asked the FCC to give the proposed rulemaking expedited treatment. Such treatment is often requested and granted when urgent matters are brought to the FCC's attention. Some FCC rulemaking proceedings can take years to complete. Law enforcement believes expedited treatment is warranted in this case based on evidence that terrorists, criminals, and/or spies are already exploiting the networks of broadband communication providers to evade lawful electronic surveillance.

"We'll get the FCC to rubberstamp our requests. Sort of like the FISA court, only better."

A: No. Law enforcement does not seek the power to dictate how the Internet should be engineered or even to decide how broadband communications networks should be engineered. As explained above, CALEA already allocates those decisions to industry and any resulting capability disputes between industry and law enforcement are decided by the FCC. Moreover, the level of surveillance is not an issue raised in the petition, is not within the scope of CALEA, and is not decided by law enforcement. Based on a statute known as "Title III," before a law enforcement agent or officer is permitted to engage in lawful electronic surveillance, he or she must seek an appropriate court order from a judge or magistrate. Only if a judicial order is issued can the lawful surveillance take place, and the level of surveillance is prescribed by the order.

"Well, we don't seek the power to dictate how the Internet should be engineered just yet. Not unless we need it or if it'll make our lives easier (and yours harder). And as you know, we in law enforcement would never engage in 'unlawful' surveillance. No sir! Not us. We are the law, so how could we?"

A: No. The petition notes that CALEA contains a definition of "telecommunications carrier" that is different from and broader than the definition of that term in the Communications Act, which governs most FCC actions. The petit

The use of Trusted Third Parties

[Anonymous Coward]

From http://www.fcc.gov/calea/

Regarding the use of trusted third parties, the Commission provided the following guidance on the use of TTPs in the CALEA Second Report and Order, at paragraph 26: "The record indicates that TTPs are available to provide a variety of services for CALEA compliance to carriers, including processing requests for intercepts, conducting electronic surveillance, and delivering relevant information to LEAs. Given the effectively unanimous view of commenters that the use of TTPs should be permitted but not required, we conclude that TTPs may provide a reasonable means for carriers to comply with CALEA, especially broadband access and VoIP providers and smaller carriers.

I've done little research on this, but I read that the original CALEA created in 1994 was extended
in May 2006 to cover broadband and VoIP providers. How suddenly have all these
businesses popped
up to fill this niche? I wonder how many ordinary people considered starting one of
these businesses themselves?

Hooray for Skype!

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the excesses in the US, it's no wonder Skype is incorporated in Luxembourg!

-jl

Praise Allah!

[Anonymous Coward]

We will be victorious, for we are on dialup!

e-mail, instant messaging records, web-browsing information and other information sent or received through a user's broadband connection, including on-line banking activity.

Sincerely,

the evildoers

So glad I'm expat now...

[mudshark]

although my email is still handled by the same small stateside ISP that I've had for 13ish years. Are significant numbers of providers going to give the feds the finger? Or will they all roll over and expose their soft parts in the name of the War on Terra?

When are the massive demonstrations going to take place? When are thousands of fed-up-to-the-gills decent Americans going to march on the Capitol and demand an end to the gratuitous use of the Bill of Rights as bumwipe? Feckin' bread-n-circuses wussies....

Re:So glad I'm expat now...

[J'raxis]

If that ISP of yours is only providing you with email, they're not bound by CALEA. See #19102005 and #19102011.

A good business decision by ISPs that provide both connectivity and Internet services (i.e., most ISPs) might be to spin off their services to a subsidiary, provide only encrypted access to the them (SSMTP, IMAPS, POPS for email; HTTPS for the company website) for customers, and then when the feds demand to wiretap a connection, they won't be able to get much.

Re:So glad I'm expat now...

[mudshark]

Serious? Really? What if I also have a shell account and a smidgen of ftp and http space? Still golden?

w00+!

If I was still in the US, I'd definitely be tunneling all traffic that I cared about. Too bad about the packet overhead.

Re:So glad I'm expat now...

[locketine]

The law states that if the ISP has the decryption key they must hand it over. Secure email be damned.

Re:So glad I'm expat now...

[Antique Geekmeister]

Unless your email is encrypted, much of your domestic and almost all international traffic is already monitored via the spy rooms installed by the NSA in core backbone network provider's facilities, such as those installed at AT&T. And with the massive bandwidth and facilities available at such centers, and the truly abysmal security of many switches and routers including documented backdoors installed for federal use, it's easy to reroute other traffic to those rooms. So let's be clear: almost all unencrypted internet traffic is monitorable by the NSA. Even though it's illegal for the NSA to monitor most domestic traffic, there are no safeguards in place to prevent it, and with the US Patriot Act in place, all they or other federal agencies need do is mumble "terrorists" to gain unfettered access to it.

I'm afraid it's going to be difficult to coordinate protests with this kind of monitoring in place. And we're still seeing people say "but if it saves one life from terrorists", not realizing that it actually encourages terrorism by ruining trust in government and making people feel that only violent action might be effective.

Re:So glad I'm expat now...

[J'raxis]

That's what PKI is for.

ENCRYPTION- A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government's ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication.

You're right that current implementations of things like SSMTP and IMAPS (using SSL) have the private key on the server-side, but SSL also allows for client-side certificates. As part of your installation when you sign up with an ISP (don't all ISPs give you those dinky CDs with their "welcome package" and branded versions of mainstream software on them?), it could generate a private key for you.

There's also the potential workaround of the ISP moving to keep its "information" and "electronic messaging" portions of its business separate from it's "telecommunications" service. Then the email keys aren't under the purview of the "telecommunications service" and are out of reach.

Re:So glad I'm expat now...

[J'raxis]

Those all seem to fall under "information services" and "electronic messaging services" according to the law, from my IANAL reading of it. Of course, the question is, if the ISP is approached by law enforcement with a wiretap demand under CALEA:

1. Will the ISP understand the request is invalid?
2. If so, will they bother fighting it realizing it'll cost the money to do so?
3. If so, and if the ISP also provides "telecommunications services", will the courts find some arcane way of labeling the email/web/FTP service as part of it, just so the wiretap can be granted?

Re:So glad I'm expat now...

[chuckymonkey]

Wow, tinfoil hat much?

Re:So glad I'm expat now...

[NormalVisual]

It's not a "tin-foil hat" thing if you've been reading the news at all over the past year or so.

Re:So glad I'm expat now...

[Antique Geekmeister]

A bit. I've been in some secret rooms in major datacenters, and been confronted with some very questionable requests for user information that I've had to cope with with legal and managerial support. So I know the policies exist and are a devil to cope with.

Monday

[suv4x4]

Hmmm... "Monday is Wiretap the Internet Day"... Quick, everybody tell their friends to perform cybercimes only Tuesday to Sunday.

We win again, government, MUAHAHAHAH!

FCC.gov slashdotted?

[bir0]

I'm having trouble accessing the link to the FCC's site linked in the original post? Am I the only one?

Maybe staff at ISP's, etc are all trying to get to the documents in a last minute attempt to comply.

Re:FCC.gov slashdotted?

[Sneakernets]

I cannot access it either. Funny.

Repeal the constitution!

[Todamont]

America: Your days are numbered.

In Soviet America

[houghi]

the governement monitors you.

Re:In Soviet America

[Skapare]

The actions of this government and administration more resemble those of Fascism than of Communism, although the subject of this article would certainly be exercised by either, as both are characterized by totalitarianism.

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." ... Robert Paxton

Re:In Soviet America

[k1e0x]

Funny and true..

How bad will it have to get before people realize this post 9/11 government we are creating is little different than those we were fighting against less than 50 years ago.

Re:In Soviet America

[caller9]

I think it sucks that parent's post is so obvious. What a wonderful world we live in. Hopefully, as it has been historically, it is only cyclical.

Then again maybe we're going to be seeing the downfall of an empire. That darned power coming from the governed thing.

I will take my beating now

[iminplaya]

America, you are my dominatrix for life. I shall submit only to you, my dearest. I've been a baaad, bad boy. I eagerly await my punishment. Chain me to the bedposts, and whip me with all your might. Open me up and let the sun shine in. Oh, yeah...OH! Sweet Mystery of Life at Last I've Found Yoouu...

Nobody does it better...

Re:I will take my beating now

[Anonymous Coward]

Open me up and let the sun shine in

You have NO idea what kind of image that produces in the context of your earlier line.

Shudder.. :-)

Re:I will take my beating now

[iminplaya]

That's precisely the image I'm trying to impart as to what's happening to all of the Americans. But it appears they know, and they like it. And they will be voting for more of the same in 08. Too bad the mods aren't getting the message, because it certainly isn't offtopic. But then I can understand that people don't like to be told they are being raped. We are expected to lie down, relax, and enjoy it. Then pretend it never happened...for the sake of the country of course. "The needs of the many..."

Miss Hillary! Miss Hillary! Come quick! Someone left the gate open and the slaves they are escapin'.

Yes, expect revocation of your passports soon. Travel restrictions won't just apply to Cuba. Anywhere outside the border will be considered off limits. Poor lost, pitiful souls. I hope they are grateful that the weather is better than Siberia.

Re:I will take my beating now

[boolithium]

I'm sure this is just someone trying to make a point. A quick google search revealed the headline "Russian President Putin introduces widespread state monitoring of the Internet".
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/put-f04. shtml
We are all in the same boat, and it seems the water is rising.

Re:I will take my beating now

[iminplaya]

We are all in the same boat...

Of course we are. After all, it's a small world. But it's all okay. We'll always have our iPods and are never very far from Mickey Dees. What more could we possibly ask for? There's nothing to complain about. Unless you're some kind of malcontent.

Re:I will take my beating now

[Anonymous Coward]

I've tried to herald discussions about a Net based political party for some time now, but it just seems like no ones listening.

Next election will be too late, if you want a fourth quarter come from behind victory for your rights, people all over the Net need to get together and organize our own presidential candidate.

It's not impossible, remember that we DO STILL LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE (with some limited restrictions) ANYONE CAN RUN FOR OFFICE. Yes that's right, if you're over 30, haven't committed any felonies, and was born an American citizen, millions of people can write in you're name and put you in office.

Amazing how that works, now maybe if we start an online referendum....say on some sort of community based discussion network thing, kinda like this one, we can all sit down and find a candidate and support him.

Re:I will take my beating now

[Radcliffe_V]

I too have tried to get people involved on the Internet and people seem to just think that this sort of thing is just too far out of reach. Logistically, however, I do believe it to be possible for an Internet based candidate to get elected to office. And not just the Presidential office, but Congressional seats and local government positions. The problem is that people should have started at least a year ago. But there still could be time, if we acted soon. If people could only imagine someone in office who would directly speak with his constituency over message boards and blogs in real time when he's making decisions. Someone who would protect the freedoms we enjoy over the Internet, and really upgrade the democracy for the 21st century.

Re:I will take my beating now

[iminplaya]

Unfortunately, you may find it rather difficult to get people to agree on a candidate. Try it right here in Slashdot, and you'll see what I mean. What I'm ultimately aiming for is to show the futility of majority rule. I don't like it. It will always put 49% out into the cold. I have been saying this all along. It's perfectly okay for one to give up their own rights as they wish. They will run into big problems when they drag my rights along with them. I have plenty of arguments with folks here who believe everything is just fine because they care not a whit of the consequences they inflict on others. The problem is not the lack of candidates, it's the lack of cooperation amongst all of us. For instance, there are some rights I will never authorize anybody to take away, one of the big ones is the right to travel freely*, the borders must come down, completely, so I've already put what some might consider an unfair limit on available choices. And the fight begins again. However, your suggestion would be better than what we have now. A little more introspection can't hurt. It is necessary to turn our backs on the distractions the authorities create to keep our attention on them. And most people will simply vote reflexively, without a thought in their head, except the hope for some special favors. Ultimately, instinct and conditioning(indoctrination) shall rule the day. That's really what you're up against. You can't fool mother nature.

*one of the most beautiful things about traveling within the states is that you can drive for days without stopping at all except for gas. Nobody to stop you to check your papers. Granted it's been six years, so I don't know the present situation. But if you lose that, then you've lost one of the biggest advantages of being in the states.

Re:I will take my beating now

[Anonymous Coward]

It definitely won't always put 49% out in the cold, usually closer to 45% or 40%. What's more important is that it will rarely leave less than 30% out in the cold.

Re:I will take my beating now

[Anonymous Coward]

We are all in the same boat...

>>Of course we are. After all, it's a small world.

UGH! BOOO! HSSS! Somebody, please! Don't we have laws against this?

Parent apparently didn't think before typing.

[Anonymous Coward]

"you're making the job harder" - the same could be said when you close the door on a cop sans search warrant. It could be that the police are just trying to catch criminals. But there's no guarentee that they're not just spying on everyone, prying in their private lives. Nor is there any guarantee that they won't do that tomorrow. In free countries the law imposes limits on the power of the goverment for a reason.

Re:Parent apparently didn't think before typing.

[rasputin465]

Mod, why the 0-score of parent? Seriously, that's a good response!

Re:Parent apparently didn't think before typing.

[Hal_Porter]

"you're making the job harder" - the same could be said when you close the door on a cop sans search warrant.

Actually, I wouldn't necessarily let a cop into my house if they didn't have a search warrant

But look at this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/647 6207.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/no l/newsid_6610000/newsid_6610700?redirect=6610737.s tm&news=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1

Internet surveillance was one of the reasons these guys got caught. Doing anything to sabbotage MI5 catching people like this is grossly irresponsible.

But the obvious "solution"...

[jdickey]

for the Reich is to have PATRIOT III include language to require logging and storage of unencrypted copies of all data that has an endpoint on said ISP's server. All your POPS belong to us..... For the guy a few posts earlier who asked the obvious question about when we're going to get riots in the street, watering Jefferson's "tree of liberty": the two obvious answers are that 1) thanks to the efforts of those who really run the country, consumers (formerly known as "the people" or, in even more archaic terms, "voters") have been relieved of the burdens of "critical thinking" and "political dynamism" since about 1974, and 2) just in case, the Best Congress Money Can Buy has been funding military semi-lethal weapons and domestic deployments (Posse Comitatus? The Decider says it's "just a scrap of paper") since shortly after the events in Item 1. Short version: The United States of America was a Constitutional republic from 4 March 1789 to sometime around November 1974; a hybrid state from 1974 to 12 December 2000, and a fascist kleptocracy since that time. This is just another warhead tossed onto the pile to see how high the rubble of freedom can be bounced.

Re:But the obvious "solution"...

[J'raxis]

What happened in 1974-11? From this list, are you talking about:

Democrats make significant gains in the U.S. Congressional midterm elections, as voters punish the Republican Party over the Watergate scandal.

What, Democrats wrecking the country? I'd pick FDR (ca. 1933) if I wanted to point to a turning point in which the Democrats got a bunch of overbearing laws passed, not 1974. Or perhaps 1917-1918, with the passage of the Sedition Act and Espionage Act, under president Wilson. But plenty of things happened prior to even that that have slowly eroded any meaning of "republic" or "freedom" in this country.

It was in 1886 when corporations really got free reign to run this country.

In 1861, a constitutional crisis over secession by states was settled through war, by a president who also suspended the Constitution, instituted the first military draft, had congressional opponents accused of treason, and began printing massive amounts of paper fiat currency, among other things. The outcome of the war was also the beginning of rapid industrialization in the United States, turning the vast majority of Americans into wage slaves working in factories. This one is of course particularly ironic because it's been justified as a war for freedom.

And as for the first power grab by the federal government? Let's look at the passage of the U.S. Constitution itself, replacing the much weaker Articles of Confederation, justified as a response to Shays Rebellion:

[T]he nationalists took advantage of a propitious rebellion, that of Daniel Shays, ...

[T]he nationalists wanted to scare the country into supporting a more vigorous government. George Washington was terrified. "We are fast verging toward anarchy and confusion," he wrote. His nationalist friends did their best to heighten his terror. Henry Knox wrote Washington of the Shaysites that "their creed is that the property of the United States" having been freed from British exactions "by the joint exertions of all, ought to be the common property of all." This was utterly false, but it did the trick. Washington agreed to be the presiding officer at the constitutional convention. Later, [James] Madison in Federalist No. 10 warned that without the strong arm of a vigorous central government, the states would be vulnerable to movements motivated by "a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property" and for other "improper or wicked project[s]."

Thankfully...

[GC]

the rest of the world not in the USA is exempt.

Re:Thankfully...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you live in Australia. Just ask Mr. Griffiths.

Re:Thankfully...

[Anonymous Coward]

And except Sweden, which already hands off just about all traffic to the MAFIAA.

Re:Thankfully...

[chill]

Sorry, but you are probably in the same boat. These companies do a driving business overseas as well.

I know of one setup that has installed probe systems in the following countries in just the past month: South Africa, Singapore, Israel, Turkey, Germany, Britain and Poland.

That was just in offhand conversation with a sales manager for one company. And considering I'm a contracted installer who has been putting these systems in all over the U.S. for the past couple months, and the discussion was about "hey, how would you like to go over here", I believe him.

They just set up regional sales offices in Europe, Africa and Asia. They already have one in Latin America.

Mod parent up, seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

(no text)

Bummer

[castrox]

Things are really going to hell, aren't they.

/a sad Swede expecting the same in Sweden in the future

anonet.org

[Anonymous Coward]

or just join anonet.org, and remember 2048bit+ is your friend.

Wish it were so...

[Anonymous Coward]

But even if you colocate outside USA, your protections will actually be much worse than at home. Not so long ago FBI cracked servers in Russia to get evidence. Never mind breaking their laws. FBI/CIA doesn't need any warrants to go after foreign targets. No privacy laws cover foreigners from americans' intrusion. Even crimes are ok, it seems. SWIFT, Airport, banking, health data, google data, all is OK to have and to spread and to sell if it's a US company and the target is a foreigner.

Ever had a stranger mock you about your health issues to fuck up your social life?

That's what it means to be a target abroad.

Wouldn't work

[Wyatt Earp]

American Indian reservations act like States or Terriories in that Federal Law applies there. Worse, since all Capital and violent crimes are handled by the FBI, almost every reservation has a local FBI office.

Routing

[Anonymous Coward]

Many packets with both source and destination points outside of US jurisdiction are nonetheless routed through the US. Does this law apply to carriers?

If so, what would happen if the rest of the world started dropping US routes because of this?

Speaking of limits...

[lunixbochs]

There are other limits...

Like bandwidth...
What happens when everyone in the country joins a network designed to thwart this?
All it would take is a program that uses idle bandwidth to connect to a mediation server, establish a random connection to another user, and transfer seemingly important, but utterly useless data.
Every minute, start a new connection at random.

Copy text from released government documents.
Heck, just send this one back and forth...

When an individual person or organization can see everything, the best way to make them regret it is to simply flood them with useless crap.
They won't have the capacity to sort the bad from the good.

Re:Speaking of limits...

[rmadmin]

CALEA isn't constant monitoring, its referred to as "Just in time" monitoring. IE: We're only supposed to sniff packets when someone shows us a nice piece of paper signed by a judge. Bandwidth and filtering isn't an issue. I've fought this at work as much as I can, but the higher ups fear what will happen if we don't comply. SAD state of affairs. :(

misunderstood

[spottedkangaroo]

I work for a very small ISP. I was initially disturbed to find out we needed to assist in this sort of thing. But you know what? It's not like law enforcement can just listen in willy nilly. They need to provide evidence, get a court order, and disclose their discoveries to the defense when they press criminal charges.

People act like this is a new processes, but they've been taping phones, installing listening devices, and charging criminals with crimes for years. As long as the three branches of government are involved, what precisely is the problem please?

Re:misunderstood

[Anonymous Coward]

What initially disturbed you about this, as an emotional gut reaction? You know, the doubts you had before you went into frightened authoratarian denial and rationalised the pretense of due process? That will be your answer, if you still have the courage to ask yourself the question.

Re:misunderstood

[Antique Geekmeister]

I'm sorry, but you are sadly mistaken. Go actually read the unclassified parts of the Patriot Act. Then take a look at the existence of the secret NSA wiretap rooms in on the core internat backbone providers such as AT&T, rooms whose existence was revealed by a company whistleblower and for which AT&T is being suied now by the EFF and other civil liberties groups. The NSA certainly can and does monitor international traffic legally, with no authorization required. It's their *job*. Unfortunately, so do other countries. And the NSA trades with them to get domestic materials.

The three branches are *not* involved in this. The handling of the monitoring does not require warrants, and is thus executive policy, without court involvement or even notification of what is beiing monitored. And even if the three branches are involved, the people being monitored are *not* being notified of the monitoring!!! There is no warrant served: even libraries are prohibited by the Patriot Act from telling book borrowers that they've been forced to turn over records, without warrants, under the Patriot Act.

Yes, it's been going on for years. It's going to happen again and again, and it needs to get slapped down each time it occurs to prevent it becoming ubiquitous and a means of interfering with public policy or personal lives of the innocent. Given the documented monitoring of Martin Luther King by the FBI, the McCarthy era files of who was a communist and forced confessions of other potential "communist" americans, and stupidities of federal raids with warrants such as the "Operation Sundevil" raids on Steve Jackson games, there is just no reason to trust federal investigations or monitoring without public exposure and review.

Re:misunderstood

[spottedkangaroo]

Right, all the above is true I'm sure. However, the may 14th deadline is for CALEA (it does require a court order) which has little to do with anything you're saying.

Re:misunderstood

[spottedkangaroo]

What initially disturbed me was my initial misunderstanding that this had something to do with the patriot act or the stripping of my civil liberties. But it does not.

The only new thing here is the standard format for the compliance with the court order (and the new requirement that you be able to produce the records for the court). Most ISPs have been saying, "yeah, we don't have that information because we wouldn't have the capacity to store it, duh" up until now.

Did you feel like your civil liberties were stripped away when the court authorized a wiretip on so-and-so or whats-his-face? How do you suppose the court or the legislature would react if your telco said, "Yeah, we don't have the equipment to tap that line." I don't think that would go over so well. Thus: CALEA.

What frightens me a great deal more than the ability of the court to order us to produce data (and the requirement that we store it) is the remote control wire tapping device installed at the police station that can listen in on any line at our small phone company.

They're supposed to get a warrant first, but my feelings indicate that if I were a cop (and believed I was helping people) I probably wouldn't bother with a warrant until I knew there was something to get a warrant about. That is much more serious than this. Let me introduce you to my little friends openssl, openssh, openvpn and gnupg.

If you believe the discrete log problem is "hard" then you have no worries. Now try doing that with your phone...

Re:misunderstood

[J'raxis]

Then what you (or whoever is responsible for this at your ISP) need to do is make sure this procedure is accurately and vigorously followed. Make it expensive and time-consuming for them to go on fishing expeditions under this law.

Too many ISPs and telecommunications providers comply with subpoenas and/or court orders authorized under laws like this, the DMCA, OCILLA, and so on, when such orders were in fact invalid for a variety of reasons. Worse, the government is also in the habit of making noncompulsory information requests to ISPs (I can't find the documentation right now, but IIRC it's justified under some sort of "emergency situation" legislation), which most ISPs just blindly follow as if they were compulsory court orders.

Re:misunderstood

[Antique Geekmeister]

But that's not what you said. You said, and I quote "They need to provide evidence, get a court order, and disclose their discoveries to the defense when they press criminal charges.".

This is clearly not the case. And whatever made you think charges will be pressed? Not only do they not need to press charges, under the Patriot Act and similar laws and policies, you can be held without bail, without a lawyer, and without the government admitting you exist under situations like Guantanamo Bay. And you can be seized in another country and deported to countries where torture is legal.

It can't be done to US citizens? How do you know it hasn't been? Do you have a list of who's in Guantanamo Bay? Can you even *get* such a list?

Yes, I verge a bit on the tin foil hat wearing crowd about thus, but not without cause. This stuff is nasty and it's verifiable that it's occurring.

Re:misunderstood

[starfishsystems]

Your point about the checks and balances involved in getting a court order is correct, and I generally agree with your comments. Each intercept requires a deliberate act by the carrier, so it can't just be activated by remote control from some police station. The exact text from CALEA section 105 is:

A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to callidentifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization and with the affirmative intervention of an individual officer or employee of the carrier acting in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission.

Moreover, CALEA specifically prohibits interception of traffic except under these terms, so a carrier which, let's say, didn't carefully scrutinize a court order could find itself in violation of federal law.

But in terms of civil rights, CALEA creates a slippery slope. Even though the powers of CALEA itself may be limited, once the capability exists to perform this sort of surveillance, then other legislation such as FIMA or the Patriot Act can come in and exploit the capability. Even within CALEA there is an emergency provision to perform surveillance without a proper court order, which I think puts the network provider in a tight spot.

Re:misunderstood

[AK Marc]

Even within CALEA there is an emergency provision to perform surveillance without a proper court order, which I think puts the network provider in a tight spot.

Sort of. The court order is required, but the tap can (and should?) start before the court order is received. This should only be used in an "emergency" situation. That is, if someone is suspected of ongoing criminal activity, then they can't rush it by claiming an emergency. The most mentioned reason for this is kidnappings. Since the rate of someone being kidnapped by a stranger is nearly zero, it should be called into effect rarely.

Re:misunderstood

[starfishsystems]

Thanks for your comment. Could you possibly cite where this interpretation is made? It's been puzzling me for awhile.

P.S. Saw your sig. I'm going to Fairbanks on Wednesday, hopefully before any of these CALEA orders start coming in...

finally ... now I know what....

[3seas]

.... all the spam is good for.

The ROTTING ELEPHANT in the room

[jrationalk]

That supports this anti-constitutional activity by our repressive regime is 9/11. The jets were classic misdirection. Jumbo jets can not demolish skyscrapers. It's sad that people can be so easily fooled. Myself included. We (finally) have the tower blueprints, and it's clear that NIST, FEAM, and the 9/11 Commission report all LIE about the towers construction; see http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprint s.html http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-718030371 2325092501 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-522496324 6223576086

Let's get to it then

[gelfling]

Bomb Nuke Osama White House Nerve Gas Bush Iraq al Qaeda Bomb Nuke Osama White House Nerve Gas Bush Iraq al Qaeda Bomb Nuke Osama

Re: Limits on Box 3 ( Jury )

[I_Voter]

I don't know how many people are aware of the extent to which the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively reduced the original powers of the Jury. In our founding fathers original views, the basic defense of our U.S. Constitutional rights was meant to be the jury!
( ie The people, - as opposed to the Supreme Court!)

Note: I have posted this same material on Slashdot 3 times in the last week. I think I will change my user name to MrDupe

My Quick and Dirty Background

1. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 83 -

The friends and adversaries of the plan of the [constitutional] convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government. For my own part, the more the operation of the institution has fallen under my observation, the more reason I have discovered for holding it in high estimation; and it would be altogether superfluous to examine to what extent it deserves to be esteemed useful or essential in a representative republic, or how much more merit it may be entitled to, as a defense against the oppressions of an hereditary monarch, than as a barrier to the tyranny of popular magistrates in a popular government. Discussions of this kind would be more curious than beneficial, as all are satisfied of the utility of the institution, and of its friendly aspect to liberty.

2. Thomas Jefferson's views were much stronger! -

"I consider trial by jury the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it's constitution." If you think that Jefferson overlooked the right to elect our representatives, you should consider a second quote of Jefferson, from a letter written in 1789, while serving. as ambassador to France: "Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say that it is better to leave them out of the Legislative."

3. One Historical Example: A Glorious Tradition of Free Speech

In 1735, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws, or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.

4. Later "Judicial Refinements."

A U.S. Supreme Court decision, (Sparf and Hansen v. U.S.) in 1895, declared (in legal principle) that those jurors were criminals! The acceptance (in principle) of the immunity of a seated jury limited the full impact of the decision. This subject is explored more fully in the book, -
JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine ,
pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press, Author: Clay S. Conrad.

5. More recently - California has allowed judges to enter jury rooms, under certain special situations, to evaluate if the jury is reasoning properly! These actions have been examined (2001) by the California Supreme Court, and found acceptable based on the 1895 Supreme Court decision.

The ability of the Judge to "judge" the reasoning processes of seated jurors, under admittedly rare situations, is only true in California.at the present time. However: IMO You can be sure it will be extended to other states and with less narrow requirements over time. The ability of a juror to vote his or her conscience is an insult to an unrepresentative government's power. The Supreme Court is as about as unrepresentative as you can get, so they will not likely stand in the way of any legislative act

Online banking?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone know how they are going to get my ISPs to give up my banking information? Do they each get a magical "crack SSL" box or something? :) (No more secrets, indeed)

Maybe the article submitter just got a little carried away. If they want the banking records, they can go direct to the bank rather than try to break 128-bit HTTPS encryption on the fly.

Re:Online banking?!

[sgt_doom]

First Data (if you don't know what they do, just look it up) already volunteered their services to the Bush administration and the Pentagon (they now make up one of the inputs to T.I.A.) immediately after those attacks on 9/11/01 - so that, takes care of that.....

ah that explains it

[nanosquid]

My Internet connection went away for a couple of hours last night; they were probably installing something. Those fools thought nobody would notice at 3am!

Re:ah that explains it

[smchris]

You too?

Actually, my ISP announced over the last couple weeks that we would be switching over to a new email and filtering system by "Sunday evening". Coincidence?

Re:ah that explains it

[Anonymous Coward]

Mine too - middle of nowhere Nebraska. My ISP sent out a mass email to all users saying the entire system would be off for "upgrades" for 30 minutes at Midnight Friday.

the Constitution is academic

[nanosquid]

It doesn't, ultimately, matter what the Constitution says if the majority of US citizens want something different. That's not a judgment, it's simple reality in a democratic system. Democracies frequently self-destruct if they lose the faith of their citizens.

So, harping on the Constitution doesn't change anything; if you want less centralized government and more liberties, you have to convince your fellow citizens to ignore the fear mongering by power-hungry politicians. Oddly enough (or perhaps not), the politicians that complain loudest about "centralized government" and "loss of states' rights" tend to be the same that are also the biggest fear mongers and the biggest proponents of government interference in individual rights, in areas such as taking away tens of thousands of each family's dollars to pay for bogus wars, limiting reproductive rights, limiting personal choice in sexual matters, imposing their religious philosophies, and limiting religious freedoms.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Naruki]

Damn, never thought I'd use that cliched phrase. Oh, well.

I am an American, though now an ex-pat. And I agree completely with the previous "mod parent up" poster. Most Americans don't understand that as well as you do.

Will no one save us...

[Anonymous Coward]

...from mad King George?

IPv6

[pcexhaust]

So what happens to taping a line when IPv6 with IPSec comes into play?

Re:IPv6

[the_mushroom_king]

I full expect to surfing the net via IPv6 right around the time I win the lottery due to my newfound physic abilities granted from the radiation caused by a passing UFO being hit by a anti-matter meteor the size of Texas.

Useful service

[gardenermike]

I've actually thought about submitting an article on this, but now I feel like I ought to say something ASAP. I recently worked on a new service: https://messages.xchangey.com. The service anonymously stores messages that are encrypted on the client end using javascript, then sent over https. It's easier than getting all of your friends to use PGP, it's free (ad-supported), and requires no setup. Works fine with Tor. You just need a pre-shared key (passphrase) that you and the recipient know.
Hope this can be helpful. We actually intended this mostly for China, but looks like the USA is getting ever closer to needing it just as much.

Re:Useful service

[starfishsystems]

Under CALEA section 105, if this service is based in the United States, you will have to provide decryption of traffic to and from this service if presented with a court order or other lawful authorization. The FCC contemplates fines of up to $100,000 per day per incident for noncompliance.

Don't say that I didn't warn ya.

http://www.askcalea.net/docs/calea.pdf

Re:Useful service

[gardenermike]

Ouch. It's not technically possible for us to decrypt (that's the beauty of it)... so under such a court order we'll either fold or move overseas. (We're already looking at the overseas option.)

Re:Useful service

[starfishsystems]

If it's not technically possible, then you don't have a problem. See CALEA section 105.

Of course it's always a sensible business decision to operate in a jurisdiction whose conditions are favorable to your business. That's just a general comment about how the world works. As a Canadian computer scientist, I made this comment during the Clipper chip initiative, where key escrow under control of the US government was going to be part of its capability. To an international observer, such a chip seemed doomed from the outset, because there was absolutely no market for it outside the United States. It might have ended up being mandated within the States, but outside, forget it.

Whatever the legitimate security needs of society may be, we have to come at them in a way that actually delivers value. Your message service is an example of this concept. I'd personally rather operate within a distributed certificate infrastructure, but that's because I don't find the technology a barrier, and I'm more comfortable managing my own key separation. But more power to you.

In any event, I think that history, and the history of law, shows an understanding that there is a net benefit to society from respecting individual privacy. The cool thing about asymmetric crypto is that privacy and anonymity are factors that can be treated in separate ways. You can have public but anonymous transactions (voting) and every other combination. I think that's how society will ultimately be able to address fraud, an activity which the numbers tell us costs society far more than the risk of illegal conspiracy ever has.

Another reason to kill internet radio in the U.S.?

[smchris]

Or is that just paranoid? Wouldn't a wiretap want to digest _all_ ports? Sixteen hours of stream a day might be annoying to our diligent guardians of freedom (that "they" hate us for).

Yes, of course.

[toby]

I did suggest a colo "in another country". Some countries still have restraints on their governments.

The real vulnerability in my suggestion is the unencrypted side of the proxy.

But I already said it's NOT PERFECT but BETTER THAN NOTHING.

Re:Yes, of course.

[Antique Geekmeister]

I'm just saying it doesn't buy you as much protection as you seem to think, since the communication channels are still vulnerable and the storage itself is accessible to another country's screwups.

A famous example of this is the death of anon.penet.fi, after numerous assaults on it with and without warrants. It's well-described over at Wikipedia.

Excellent idea.

[toby]

n/t

Looking for a Start-up Idea?

[Lord Balto]

Guillotines!

Monitor that Alberto!

Re:Another reason to kill internet radio in the U.

[starfishsystems]

Under CALEA an intercept is performed against a specific individual, for example a broadband subscriber. It is illegal to capture traffic except to and from that individual. As you point out, that can add up. So who pays for it?

When the FCC went through its comment period prior to the Second Report and Order, many network providers expressed concern not only about equipment changes, but also about bearing the cost of this traffic, since they are neither allowed to increase their rates nor to bill the government. In its decision, the FCC essentially said, we've listened to concerns from industry and we're confident that industry will come up with a solution if compelled to do so.

proprietary standard

[belmolis]

Am I the only one who finds it bizarre and offensive that ISPs must purchase a proprietary standard in order to comply with the law? Surely technical information about what is required ought to be freely available from the government.

A simple solution for the rest of the world:

[RCHS-Svein]

Since the rest of the world must now logically consider all traffic going through US routing points as compromized, I expect every carrier that has links going into United Surveillance of America to mark these links as having a higher network cost than any other link. The solution is to route traffic AROUND the USA, and to make sure that all communications into this country is limited to the mere minimum. This country has now gone so far under the excuse "The war on terror", they are starting to resemble another self-imaged power that fell in 1945. Maybe it's time for politicians worldwide to require UN sanctions on this police-state? //Svein

Traffic Generator Script

[Anonymous Coward]

I just threw together a simple script to do some screen scraping and link following on various search sites. Anyone want to list some suspicious (but not outright illegal) phrases and search terms?

Go ahead! Throw your vote away!

[Scrameustache]

unlike in your naive "we could start our own political party" fantasy, in the real world plurality voting causes third parties to siphon votes away from the major party that more closely expresses their views. All my layers of governments are now minority governments.
The place has never been run as well: no party has enough power to abuse, they copnstantly have to compromise. Bye bye pork!

Also, when a one-idea party starts to get a significant percentage of the vote, their ideas suddenly start being introduced by elected members of a major party, because they realize that a lot of their voters want it bad enough that they'll vote for someone else until they get what they want.

But I don't blame you for blindly defending your two-party farce, you probably voted for Kodos.

The joys of inconstency

[ManConley]

The best part about this is that broadband services providers are "information services" rather than "telecommunications services" when the FCC wants them to be - like, say, when it wants to ensure that they are not subject to common carrier requirements, hence triggering the entire net neutrality debate. But when the FCC wants to ensure that the FBI can access Internet records, it decides that broadband Internet providers are actually telecommunications services and not information services. Wired got it right the first time:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

Re:The joys of inconstency

[J'raxis]

So I assume this is yet another legal principle that's been watered down or outright abandoned in the US government's drive to get whatever it damn well wants, eh?

It does have to be illegal

[the_mushroom_king]

I'm sure looking at the wrong site can get you declared an "Enemy Combatant" and then its off on an all expenses paid flight to Guantanamo or some other exotic locale!

ob HHGTG

[djdavetrouble]

"It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."

you can drive for days without stopping...

[Nonesuch]

iminplaya writes:

one of the most beautiful things about traveling within the states is that you can drive for days without stopping at all except for gas. Nobody to stop you to check your papers. Granted it's been six years, so I don't know the present situation. But if you lose that, then you've lost one of the biggest advantages of being in the states.

This is still true, unless you cross into California (Fish & Game), or cross from Texas into New Mexico (ICE). But both of these internal state border checks have been in place for at least a decade, and the California check is driven by internal state politics unique to California.

Re:you can drive for days without stopping...

[iminplaya]

To be honest so does Arizona, but it's still a couple of days from Chicago if your traveling less than double the limit. And to be even more honest, it's even better to travel by train. It's the only way to fly. Every bit as nice as a Caribbean cruise. That only thing that really stinks now is using the airlines. All the joy is gone. I never dreamed in all my days that anything could approach the horrors of Greyhound, but there you are. Oh well, as the old saying goes, ...you don't know what you've got till its gone.

Yum

[Anonymous Coward]

Delicious Copypasta!

stupid lameness filter

[Anonymous Coward]

One step closer to fascism.

expatriates and wusses

[chelanfarsight]

so glad youre an expat? like who? benjamin franklin? thomas jefferson? george washington? the massive demonstrations will probably occur when those who do realize what's going on quit running away to become expats. lazy much? or just a coward who likes to run from a fight only to call those left behind "wussies"?

Re:Traffic Generator Script (sample data)

[Douglas Goodall]

Freedom of thought. Cold Fusion. Free Energy. Transparency in Government. Tesla.

Tracking mania

[CopaceticOpus]

Just because this information CAN be tracked and recorded doesn't mean that it SHOULD be recorded.

I like to compare internet activities to real life. An email conversation is similar to a face-to-face conversation. Visiting a web site is like visiting a grocery store. Posting in a forum is like going to a public meeting. People have been doing these things for years without any requirement that all of their activities be tracked and recorded. So why should this requirement exist just because these activities are now being done electronically?