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
We desperately need a personal Internet telephony program that has full support for encryption. PGPfone was left unmaintained a decade ago, and Ekiga won't have encryption support until version 3.0. It's like there's a conspiracy to leave the public without such a basic tool.
Did Jefferson mention encryption? It's probably more likely to happen than getting people to go outside and get killed by the police or whatever.
Anarchy exists nowhere but in the individual mind.
In any society of human individuals greater than one, there will always evolve some system of governance.
It is not a question of whether you will lose any freedom, but of how much you will lose.
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.
I'm trying to figure out why the summary calls this document "shocking." Interesting yes, shocking no. It is well known that the law requires VOIP providers to maintain a capability for law enforcement agencies to wiretap. This requirement has been around for years, and is completely consistent with older "Plain Old Telephone Service." Its not like CALEA is hidden. You can find its website with a quick google. The author of the summary seems to be conflating CALEA with the dustup with the Bush administration and unlawful wiretaps. They are separate issues. Conflating them helps no one.
This was leaked at least 4 years ago.
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.
You mean "Don't talk about what you have done or what you are going to do (at least over an unsecured medium)"? ;)
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?
Yawn. This is the FBI's implementation plan, not some super-secret details of the specs. This is derived from J-STD-025A, J-STD-025B, and EWA 3.0 AMTA docs. Feel free to Google for those. The first and last you should be able to find. The "B" one they want money for, so it is harder to find freely online.
Those detail exactly WHAT and HOW monitoring is going to occur, on a technical level.
And don't get your knickers in a twist about the FBI document. I've already seen one instance where the FBI told a carrier "we want it done this way" and the carrier's lawyers said "no, that isn't legal and we won't do it". Of course, it was probably a result of the software not being implemented in that manner and it would have cost the carrier mucho $$ to do it the FBI's way...
Nothing like a few $$ to prompt the legal dept. to see it your way.
http://www.google.com/search?q=j-std-025&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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
Obama has done nothing to show that he would be any different then the others but you are willing to cut him a pass because you don't know.
Senator Obama's qualifications Include a J.D. in constitutional law from Harvard, He was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, and he worked as a community organizer and later as a lawyer representing community organizers on voting rights and discrimination issues.
So yeah I think that there is some evidence that he might have a better understanding of and respect for the constitution of the United States of America.
this can be confirmed with a simple wikipedia search or set of google searches (or by reading his first book, Dreams from My Father).
Just because something is not yet proven does not mean that no evidence exists.
When used properly with *warrants*, wiretapping is an important law enforcement tool. Don't go confusing bad behavior by the Government with necessary law enforcement tools.
;)
The capability is needed, but so is proper oversight and protection of Consitutional rights. Then again all you wanted was to squeeze in your Obama ad
It is funny how some mods attacked your comment. People should start realizing that THERE IS NO (-1) I don't agree .
""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.
If you think Ackbar Hussein Osama is going to be any bigger on individual rights than Grandpa and the Bitch, then you are sadly mistaken.
It's interesting that you should refer to "Barack" as "Ackbar." Admiral Ackbar was an accomplished leader of the Rebel Alliance, which was the "good" side in the Star Wars universe. He spent much of his career fighting the (evil) Galactic Empire.
It's telling that you should be using the name in a derogatory way.
In any case, I'm not the biggest expert in Star Wars, unlike some here, but evidently at some point Ackbar was wrongly accused of treason by a politically-motivated opponent. We'll have to watch Fox News over the next several months to find out how much life imitates art.
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.
>It is said that Anarchy is the absence of rulers, not the absence of rule.
said by who? Let me guess, he was an "anarchist," by which I mean high school drop out living in his mom's basement, complaining that society would be "so much more awesome" if there weren't any rules, and he didn't have to keep his room clean.
Anarchy:
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."''
Any social endeavor has politics and power relationships and de facto governing processes by which collective decisions are made, they even exist within families and other tiny social units. Anarchy is just a society where those relationships are no longer functional and stable. You have groups competing for power without a mediator and chaos persists (e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan).
Humans can't survive in anarchy because we are social animals, and require cooperation and certain kinds of power relationships to survive. People naturally form social structures with leaders and followers, it's part of basic human psychology.
Even the free software movement has leaders with specific powers that they can enforce. That you think otherwise just goes to show that you've never contributed. Linus doesn't let any patches into mainline Linux that he doesn't want to, and that effectively kills those patches. Other organizations have even more stringent policies. To commit to FSF, Mono, and many other projects and organizations you must turn over your copyright to them, so that they can relicense it under whatever terms they want (presumably, the next version of the GPL, but who knows?).
Often a company is responsible for all of the high level design of a product, and controls the repository, and open source developers are either hired by said company to do the work, or are on the periphery.
Even if a specific company isn't responsible for high level design, some people are de facto designers. This isn't that different than in a company, and these relationships naturally form even if they aren't dictated, otherwise the project falls apart.
Open source isn't really a "governing model," it's just the same old human behavior and practices, but with a new software license.
"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.