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

[asninn]

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

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

[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

[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.

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: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!

In Soviet America

[houghi]

the governement monitors you.

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: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]."