Slashdot Mirror
A History of Wiretapping
ChelleChelle writes "Wiretapping technology has grown increasingly sophisticated since the police first began to utilize it as a surveillance tool in the 1890s. What once entailed simply putting clips on wires has now evolved into building wiretapping capabilities directly into communications infrastructures (at the government's behest). In a modern society, where surveillance is often touted as a way of ensuring our safety, it is important to take into consideration the risks to our privacy and security that electronic eavesdropping presents. In this article, Whitfield Diffie and Susan Landau examine these issues, attempting to answer the important question: does wiretapping actually make us more secure?"
No, it just makes you a jackass and makes the person who listens in on you a fuckass. More police state bullshit and why it's somehow good for you at 11!
Does warrantless wiretapping help anyone other than the statists who have wanted this power for a long time and now have a working excuse for it?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
When wiretapping is undertaken under the auspices of the ECPA and FISA, it does actually help protect citizens. When it is done outside of these Acts, then you have big problems. I was never a big fan of the lowering of the standard for electronic surveillance that the USA PATRIOT Act introduced, as I feel that it unbalanced the fine job that existing legislation was serving already.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
As much as I loathe the fact that the previous administration abused wiretapping, maybe it's a necessary evil? I don't know all of the history of wiretapping, but I imagine that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies used it to capture dangerous criminals in the past and are currently doing it in the present. As long as a warrant is obtained, I don't see why it would be illegal. Of course there will be abuse, but don't throw out a tool simply because it can be abused. Many things in life can be abused. Does that warrant their expulsion from society? Alcohol is abused, but should it be done away with? Probably a stretch of an analogy, but it works. Law enforcement, however, should not be allowed to wiretap without a warrant. Fighting terrorism, whether foreign against foreign or domestic, should not be an excuse for illegal wiretaps.
"Anyone who would give-up ESSENTIAL liberty for *temporary* security, deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin. Also while we may be able to trust a President Bush or President Obama with the ability to monitor our internet transactions, eventually there will arise a man like Julius Caesar or Nero or Napoleon who will use the ability of spying for his own enrichment and/or to eliminate enemies. Like Nixon did.
IMHO people who trust government are either fools, or they don't know history,
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
in the Katz decision, it finally recognized that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."
Don't worry sir, we are perfectly within our right to search and seize your house, but we won't go through your pockets or perform a cavity search.
Wiretapping makes the government more secure, not individuals.
Wiretapping constitutional? This absolutely makes our country less free and not a bit safer. Everything we do is monitored. Even the printer we use has a signature on it so it can be tracked to you. Can anyone be anonymous anymore in America? can we fly "under the radar?"
Web Design + SEO
VOIP users can obtain a public-key private-key pair. In my home I could have my voip phone encrypt my voice output with your public key when I am speaking with you. Only you can decrypt it because you control the your private key. There is not any wiretapping scheme that can defeat this system unless the government coerces your private key from you. If the government asked for my private key then I would simply exercise my right to remain silent.
I always find it amazing when Mafiosas are caught saying provocative stuff on the phone. They had to have known they were being wiretapped. If you know you're going to do something illegal, you don't do it any way that can be traced. No emails, no cell phones, nothing. Just voices in ears. Take the UNABOMBER. He wrote on a manual typewriter, made his bombs out of wood he himself took out of the forest. Every metal component in his bombs was made from scratch, not derived from some other source. So, every single one of those things were utterly untraceable. (He was only caught because his own brother recognized his writing style.)
From TFA: "Wiretapping was the perfect tool for investigating crimes such as these that lack victims who complain and give evidence to the police"
Yet another reason to rethink our war on drugs policy.
(and no, I don't want pot to be legal so I can use it, I just want them to stop wasting so much money on a faulty premise, as seen in prohibition)
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
You'd realize the "controversy" over the NSA's gathering of Americans' telephone call information is a tempest in a teapot.
What's really going on, this program of which Russell Tice of the NSA said, "there's no way the programs I want to talk to Congress about should be public ever, unless maybe in 200 years they want to declassify them. You should never learn about it; no one at the Times should ever learn about these things..." makes their warrantless wiretapping of journalists look like innocent fun.
I have personal experience with what's really going on, but I can't talk about it, especially on this site full of technically sophisticated users, because guys like you are arrogantly certain you know everything, and the stuff I know about falls outside your area of expertise.
The corporations have won. The politicians are all in their pockets, and neighborhood watches and police informants are tricked into Gang Stalking any potential opposition at the street level, with the help of this 'program' Russ Tice refers to. It's an invisible holocaust which you won't believe in until you get sucked into it.
Considering what Mark Klein http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrBapXsLcro and others have already told us, it's a little late for a wiretapping with warrant debate, as that case is already lost. The sooner everyone realizes that everything they type and say online and over the phone today is public to anyone with the technology to tap, the sooner groups could organize and take back the right to privacy through better technology and government policy. But honestly, isn't it already a lost cause? Seems like we have already embarked on a path to the dark side, with little light on the end of the privacy tunnel.
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
Only at Slashdot would parent be marked "insightful".
You do realize, of course, that there are a wide variety of situations wherein a LEO is allowed by the law to enter a home without a warrant, I assume.
Probable cause, for one. If the police follow a person fleeing a crime into a residence - or virtually anywhere else, for that matter - they're acting well within their rights and duties and no warrant is needed.
An Arrest Warrant - No search warrant is needed if officers have an arrest warrant and the reasonable belief that the fugitive is inside. Even if they find evidence for crimes unrelated to the search warrant, the evidence is still admissible. See e.g. Gaskins v. U.S., 218 F.2d 47
Consent is another. If the homeowner has provided their consent, then the Police are well within their rights and duties.
The Open Fields Doctrine is another. If objects are left in plain view in an area not traditionally secured as private, the police are well within their rights to search these areas. See Oliver v. U.S.
And the list goes on. And on. And on. Contrary to what you saw on TV or what your high school civics teacher improperly told you, a search warrant isn't always necessary. In fact, interfering with the police in the above situations can easily get you arrested, but you'll at least give the judge a good laugh as he hears you argue the 4th Amendment as a defense.
And what if the search or wiretap is illegal? If you're truly a criminal, if you've truly done the things you are accused of doing, then you may have just hit the jackpot. Under the exclusionary rule (subject to its exceptions, of course), the evidence is tainted, the "fruit of a poisonous tree," and likely inadmissible as evidence against the target of the search in any case.
IANAL - just a 3L (and I haven't taken Crim Pro yet, so don't be cruel, but if you have an actual understanding of the law, please correct me where I am wrong). But of course we have internet lawyers here like parent who just love to make these ridiculous arguments.
Look, I'm not fond of cops. I can't think of anyone who has ever been to law school actually worked with attorneys and seen what the police often do could be fond of them. But following suggestions like parent's is foolishness indeed. Want to support your local public defenders in making illegal search arguments? Please do. chip in some cash, they could use the money. But don't run about harassing the police as parent suggests.
"Does wiretapping make us more secure."
Define your terms and perhaps you can begin to address the question. And if you acknowledge that the world is a complex place, then perhaps you'll even be willing admit that the simplicity of this question is ridiculous.
I'm shocked that I've found little commentary from you Slash.erers about the egregious abuse of power from WWII up through the 1970's that led to the Federal Information Security Act (FISA). Essentially, the Intelligence 'Community' refused to give up the use of their information gathering tools, even though their use, in the absence of reasonable suspicion and court approval, was ILLEGAL. Surveillance was rampant and it's not like it protected us from the Mob during that time, unless you think redirecting the Mafia against Castro during the Bay of Pigs fiasco did anyone any favors.
Since then communications technology has changed and the methods and techniques use in surveillance has been improved along with it. So has the opportunity for its abuse. The Bush administration took this to new heights and used FUD in ways that make Microsoft look like a schoolyard wimp. If you want a good read on the topic at hand, from a legal scholar, a concerned citizen and recipient of numerous awards for his efforts to provide advice and counsel on liberty and freedom of expression, read Justice at War: The Men and Ideas that Shaped America's War on Terror by David D. Cole. Once you've read this work, then you might be able to reframe the question in a more historically grounded discussion regarding the nature of what it means to "make us secure" why it might be necessary, and from whom.
Yes, unless you get caught.
Richard M. Nixon
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
If cop had cause to enter, if he didn't need a warrant, he wouldn't be asking for permission, he would simply BREAK in, bust down the door, break window, anything to gain entry.
Don't be an idiot, never give permission! Never answer questions! Identify yourself, and ask for your lawyer!
Are you kidding?
Many crimes can be stopped in the conspiracy phase rather than the "real world". Would you rather have bombers or armed robbers stopped before or after they commit the crime?
Wiretapping is against the law and should not be allowed on your line without a warrant. I quote from the fourth amendment "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."
You think it's fun listening to some euro jackass telling his bitches to get work because he needs a new gold tooth?
In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
Well, apparently not ...
The answer is obviously "yes" but you ignore the corollary question:
Would you rather have liberty, or would you rather have government officials harassing you at every turn? I'd rather have liberty even if that means a few crooks sometimes succeed in holding-up banks. Being harassed would make me feel like I was a child again, rather than a freeman.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
You're telling everyone else to do that because you'll be hiding behind the couch.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Asking for a key != asking for permission.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
We should allow terrorists to fly planes into buildings so that you can feel like you're in the wild west?
You're not the only one who can make a non sequitur.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Are you psychic?
How do you know what one person would/wouldn't do? Assume much?
Podcast #22 The Peter B Collins Show Tue 04 Aug 2009 02:15:59 PM PDT audio/mpeg: 33018Kb NSA whistleblower Russell D. Tice, who was the first to report that journalists were targeted by illegal domestic wiretapping and surveillance, joins us for the second installment of the Boiling Frogs interview series, co-hosted by Sibel Edmonds. Tice tells us he was briefed on more than 200 "black" programs over his 20+ years in US intelligence, and expresses deep concern that Bush-era surveillance may have compromised many of our political leaders. ..
http://www.peterbcollins.com/ and for loads of fun perusing redacted documents.. http://nsarchive.org/
do people seriously believe that only Governments do 'wiretaps' ? that commercial and criminal elements of the community do not?
There was an unknown error in the submission.
That works well only in movies!
Yes I'd rather have one of those RARE once-in-200-years events, than to have cameras in my house, or wiretaps on my PC, constantly spying on everything I do. And it's not non-sequitor... it's already happening in the UK where it's justified as crime prevention.
Sorry but I'd rather have the right to privacy even if that meant another WTC was attacked in the year 2200. The former is more important to me than the latter.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
IAASP (I Am A Security Professional) and my business is the feeling of security. It is widely accepted in the industry that lots of the security we see is only make-believe, and in accepting this reality we don't waste efforts trying to make something impossible real. This feeling of security works two ways; the Good Guys who pay us don't have to worry about the Bad Guys who we scare off. In a perfect world we would be out of business. A sticker with my company's logo is a deterrent to crime. These stickers consequently cost money and you get a whole security system to go with the sticker.
Many of these systems work very well; such as CCTV cameras and movement detectors. What works less well is the ~ 20 min response time for our van to show up in your driveway, but what you really care about is how much less your insurance costs because you have our security systems. The insurance companies don't know it's our stickers that do the real work.
CCTVs can keep you from getting stabbed, robbed, or otherwise violated on the street, provided your assailant knows you're being watched. Without this knowledge our surveillance only serves to catch the perp and prove their guilt. When a known criminal enters the area of surveillance they are monitored in detail, because they are much more likely to do something they're not supposed to do than the unknowns in the area.
When the Bad Guys join our company and use the systems supposed to keep unknowns from harm to oogle their bust, perform industrial espionage or plan a robbery the fine scheme breaks down. Currently background checks and long service records is the basis upon which people are granted greater responsibilities and chances to mess something up. This is a very human process of learning to decide, you I trust; you I don't. This is something you learn in the business by practice and it's critical to our ability perform our work. Usually criminal intent doesn't get very far here, but to wit that's not the case of US police forces. My own observation is that US cops 'help' relatives when they are in trouble, not realizing doing so equals corruption.
A real problem arises when the rot sets in in the upper echelons on Management. Anyone who appears to be in charge can almost without fail convince others to break the rules even when they completely lack authority, and it sets precedence. Emotional compromise such as an acute sense of patriotism can persuade for example a chief of police to interpret the text of the law in one way even though they know the spirit of the law means another thing, because their Gut Feeling tells them 'this is the guy'. What they don't realize is that the gut feeling is compromised by their feverent patroitism, and that even if this feeling honed by decades of experience is usually always right; this time it is wrong. Maybe they are pursuing an apparent lack of what they understand patriotism to be rather than criminal intent. If gut feeling is awash with all sorts of concerns unrelated to the subject at hand it is confused and starts giving false positives. Should the observer be unconcerned by all emotional affairs unrelated to the case, a false positive is highly unlikely.
Seems you don't read the news much lately. There was another plot to blow up planes recently broken up in England. It is not a once every 200 year event. There is no "essential liberty" involved in plotting to kill people.
I am also not talking about the world class events. What about the plot to hold up a bank? Would you like to be the police officer telling the wife of a dead guard "We knew they were planning a robbery but we couldn't listen to their phone conversations and had no idea which bank they would hit or when. I am sorry your husband was killed".
The main flaw in your argument is the premise that we either watch everything or we watch nothing. I agree that cameras in one's house and blind wiretapping is going too far. On the other hand when there is credible evidence that something illegal is going on and a warrant is issued then go ahead and watch.
And even if it were I doubt that someone can legally give consent on behalf of a neighbor.