Technical Risks of the US Protect America Act

A group of respected security researchers has released a paper on the security holes that would be opened up if a broad warrantless wiretapping law is passed. The subject could hardly be more timely, as Congress is debating the subject now. Steve Bellovin, Matt Blaze, Whit Diffie, Susan Landau, Peter Neumann, and Jennifer Rexford have released a preprint of Risking Communications Security: Potential Hazards of the Protect America Act (PDF), which will appear in the January/February 2008 issue of IEEE Security and Privacy. It will hit the stands in a few weeks. From Matt Blaze's blog posting: "As someone who began his professional carrier in the Bell System (and who stayed around through several of its successors), the push for telco immunity represents an especially bitter disillusionment for me. Say what you will about the old Phone Company, but respect for customer privacy was once a deeply rooted point of pride in the corporate ethos. There was no faster way to be fired (or worse) than to snoop into call records or facilitate illegal wiretaps, well intentioned or not. And it was genuinely part of the culture; we believed in it, even those of us ordinarily disposed toward a skeptical view of the official company line. Now it all seems like just another bit of cynical, focus-group-tested PR."

Comments

Call your senators

[Steeltalon]

The only thing that we can do is look at material like this and make sure that we communicate these points to those who represent us. It's only natural to be cynical about the likelihood of making a difference with your call, but unless you take that action we'll never know if we could stop this thing.

Re:Call your senators

[bleh-of-the-huns]

I wish that was true.. and honestly I thought it was somewhat true.. till after having a conversation with a friend of mine and her roomate. They both work for Senators, in one case that individual is actually the person who filters all the calls that go into a senators office, and decides what gets through.. and what does not... (Apparently most of the calls they get involve black helicopters.. go figure). I mentioned the latest FISA related stuff, and her response was that the Senator has "people" that research that stuff all day and inform the senator.. to which my response was that, that was not the point I was trying to make, and that the point I was making is that the people they represent are against said bills, not whether they are cooks or not. She shrugged her shoulders... at me... Which leads me to believe, that the people the senators hire (which obviously fall in line with the senators agenda), have no interest in hearing from constituents, but rather already have the answer, and are only really researching the questions.

I honestly hope this scenario is incorrect, but that is the impression I got from that little conversation.

Re:Call your senators

[flaming error]

The day my "representatives" listen to me is the day they learn I donated more than the telco industry.

Re:Call your senators

[Relic of the Future]

And that's the thing, isn't it?

Everyone complains about "the congress", and yet, everyone keeps re-electing the same scumbags back into it!

"Oh, no!" they say, "_my_ congressperson is doing a fine job! It's everyone _else's_ that's a problem!" Which really means "My guy brings the pork home, and that's good; but yours brings YOUR pork home, and that's bad!" And with the way the rules in congress works, a junior member has a lot less pull to bring that pork home; so 90% of the time, the incumbant wins.

Or they say "I would, except, $MY_PARTY keeps putting up the same choice for re-election, and I'm certainly not going to vote for $OTHER_PARTY," which is an appeal to how poorly the First Past the Post method of adjudicating elections works. With any more-robust voting method, parties could run multiple candidates without risks of spliting the vote and losing, or, *gasp*, third-party candidates could have a real chance, without acting as spoilers (damn you Ralph Nader!)

But again, that's just pointing out the problems. How do you fix the bylaws in congress, when those who benefit from them are the only ones with the power to change them? How do you change voting practices when all the lawmakers in power owe their position to the current method?

All I can think of, is start at the bottom. You can't change the nation before you change your state, and you can't change your state before you change your town. So, in order to fix the US Congress by, oh, 2020, run for town council today.

Edmund Burke Updated

[Stanistani]

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

As a bonus, pass a law giving evil men immunity.

In typical slashdot fashion...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

In typical slashdot fashion, I have not taken the time to read the whole bill. I have not even read a summary of it. However, having read the title, I can say that I, living in America, support this whole concept of "protecting America." Go on Congress, allocate the funds for some more tanks or something, I'm behind you!

Hoover, anyone?

[SuperBanana]

There was no faster way to be fired (or worse) than to snoop into call records or facilitate illegal wiretaps, well intentioned or not.

Bull*shit*, chief. Hoover wiretapped and bugged whatever and whomever the hell he wanted, and nobody dared complain- he was 'fighting' communism. Hoover did it entirely on the premise that, as director of the FBI, it was his purview. That's it. No fancy legal mumbo-jumbo. "I'm the boss."

I hate the current wiretapping as much as the next guy, but let's not get caught up in "when I was your age, candybars cost 5 cents and the phone company didn't tap your phones illegally."

Our phones have been tapped almost since their inception; all the changes is who's calling the shots, what "evil" group is being targeted, and whose definition of "legal" is being used.

Police State Coming

[queenb**ch]

You can mod me as a troll or flame bait or what ever you like. The fact of the matter is that we're on the slippery slope toward becoming a police state. Stay with me...

First the Patriot Act - no more do you have show probable cause and get a search warrant. The enforcement branch is now unfettered by little things like the Bill of Rights.

Second the Emergency Powers Act - this allows martial law to be declared and turns the President into a military dictator if there's "catastrophic emergency" but utterly and complete fails to define what qualifies as a "catastrophic emergency"

Third is this - Now they have the unlimited ability to spy on the average citizen.

Am I seriously the only one who sees a pattern in all of this? Shall I start citing historical examples? Wake up people!!!

2 cents,

QueenB