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.'"

11 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Limits on government by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Limits on government by Lavene · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:Limits on government by asninn · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      butter the donkey
    3. Re:Limits on government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

  2. suggestion by toby · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

    --
    you had me at #!
  3. $164 by mastershake_phd · · Score: 5, Funny

    $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.

    1. Re:$164 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  4. Amendment IV by poor_boi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Telecommunications services only by J'raxis · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    [...]
  6. Re:So glad I'm expat now... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:So the next step by Bob+Gelumph · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    --
    I'm gonna need a spec.