Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks Publishes FBI VoIP Surveillance Docs
An anonymous reader writes "The folks on wikileaks have published a new interesting and shocking report: FBI Electronic Surveillance Needs for Carrier-Grade Voice over Packet (CGVoP) Service.
The 88 paged document, which is part of the CALEA Implementation Plan was published in January 2003 and describes in detail all needs for surveillance of phone calls made via data services like the internet.
Wikileaks has not published any analysis yet, so maybe some of the techies hanging around this end of the internet are interested in taking that one on."
Time to take Thomas Jefferson's advice?
Most of the stuff on
I think its now time that one should start encrypting all voip traffic.. I understand we don't even have https everywhere right now..
use smartphones.. use encrypted voip to make all the phone calls, and use the regular service provider to make emergency calls like 911
I think this is the way to go..
I know some one will say there are attacks possible on encrypted connections... but the question is that its not feasible to attack every connection out there.. atleast make their job as difficult as possible.
It is at least a talking point of the Democrats. But one which I wouldn't trust Hillary to follow. And there is no question that McCain couldn't give a rat's ass about your privacy as to the FBI.
So yes, Obama is a better pick on individual rights than either of the alternatives.
Whether it will be a huge difference, or whether he will remain true to this, noone can be sure. As in life, there are no guarantees in politics.
It is said that Anarchy is the absence of rulers, not the absence of rule.
Take the free software movement as an example... the movement isn't ruled by anyone, the society of human individuals (programmers) can license their work any way they like, but they _choose_ to push for freedom on to others.
Those who are free to choose are not ruled.
Recording police interrogations is a manifestly good thing. It ensures, among other things, that the police can't simply beat you until you confess.
Surveillance of public servants and surveillance of the general populace aren't even remotely similar.
It's frightening that you think leaking information "about legal and non-controversial wire taps" is "borderline treason". If this really is as boring as you think, then why would millions need to be spent to undo any damage, why would the US gov start legal action, and why would there need to be an internal investigation?
The words "warrant" and "judge" do not appear in this document.
Read what you write before you post it, because I'm not sure you actually realize what you just said. If so, hope your Karma enjoys its vacation.
You would rather have police locked in a room with someone and walk out with a supposedly signed confession disposition when a videotape would have proved it forged? Say what you want about "serve and protect", there are good cops, but it's the bad cops that ruin things for the rest of us.
+5, Truth
""I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -TJ
I think that one fits too.
There's not much new here. If you're familiar with CALEA, the law that hooked the Government into the phone system big-time, this is basically the same set of requirements the FBI wanted for voice calls. There was a big disagreement in the voice world over in-band signalling. The question was whether a "pen register" warrant authorized access to signalling data that goes over the voice channel, like Touch-Tone tones sent to some non-carrier device. The FBI was bitching about that for years.
The trouble with all this stuff is that Congress didn't mandate proper auditing. Every surveillance event in CALEA ought to be logged by the Judicial Branch, at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. We don't have that.
"Privacy" as discussed here is about protecting privacy from the government, to whom we pay taxes and who might imprison us, prosecute us, or target us for our beliefs, words, or affiliations. Privacy from the general public is a different issue. Please argue that issue elsewhere as it confuses (and is probably intentionally meant to confuse) the real issue of privacy with regards to the government. If you still don't understand, I'll repeat it in bold face: "Privacy" as discussed here is about protecting privacy from the government.
Don't play or be dumb and confuse the issues.
Just callin' it like I see it.