Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
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.
those who give up freedoms for security get neither security nor freedom. these morons work for us not the other way around damn it...
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
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!
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
the governement monitors you.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"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.
"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
(no text)
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.
What?
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.
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.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
What happened in 1974-11? From this list, are you talking about:
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:
Liberty in your lifetime
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.
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.