Slashdot Mirror


Govt Docs Reveal Canadian Telcos Promise Surveillance Ready Networks

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports that Canadian telecom and Internet providers have tried to convince the government that they will voluntarily build surveillance capabilities into their networks. Hoping to avoid legislative requirements, the providers argue that "the telecommunications market will soon shift to a point where interception capability will simply become a standard component of available equipment, and that technical changes in the way communications actually travel on communications networks will make it even easier to intercept communications."

74 comments

  1. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. High costs to customers, check.
    2. Slow speeds, check.
    3. No expenses spared upgrading intercept capabilities for the government, priceless!

    1. Re:Awesome by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      3. No expenses spared upgrading intercept capabilities for the government, priceless!

      I knew it, our telecommunications companies have been bought by John Hammond.

    2. Re:Awesome by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      4. Backdoor deliberately designed into equipment almost immediately exploited by hackers, check.

  2. So basically the Nazis are taking over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    We kill Hitler, a new one emerges.

    1. Re:So basically the Nazis are taking over by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I think we're at ~1943 already.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:So basically the Nazis are taking over by mythosaz · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Godwin in 2. Not bad, Slashdot.

    3. Re:So basically the Nazis are taking over by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      'Godwin's Law' in the idiotic modern interpretation, is primarily used to defend the actions of Nazis.

      'You said you want to muder all Jews. You're a Nazi!'
      'Ha-ha. Godwin's Law! You lose!'

      I'm sure I remember Godwin once saying how embarrassed he was about the whole thing.

    4. Re:So basically the Nazis are taking over by dryeo · · Score: 1

      That is not an example of Godwin as the comparison is on topic (authoritarian regime). A Godwin would be comparing your statement to Hitler or Nazism.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:So basically the Nazis are taking over by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      'Godwin's Law' in the idiotic modern interpretation, is primarily used to defend the actions of Nazis.

      The only problem with that argument is that it flies in the face of the facts. Nobody defended the Nazis. Nobody said anything about wanting to murder all Jews. And as far as I am aware, the Nazis didn't implement surveillance on Internet traffic.

      This was the correct usage of Godwin's Law, where a discussion that was completely unrelated to the Nazis was likened to that regime. I think that you have been a bit over-sensitive to the adage.

    6. Re:So basically the Nazis are taking over by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      Godwin's Law makes no reference to the aptness of the comparison to the Nazis or Hitler. Here is the law as stated by Wikipedia:

      "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." - that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.

    7. Re:So basically the Nazis are taking over by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Here's the actual Godwin's Law, as stated by Godwin:

      "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"

      That's it. It's true, it's kind of amusing, it's otherwise pointless.

      The new, improved, Godwin's Law is: "If anyone says anything about Nazis, I can shout 'Godwin's Law' and shut down the discussion".

      The only people who benefit from that are Nazis, because they can shut down any discussion about Nazis. No sane person should ever use the fake 'Godwin's Law', or defend it.

    8. Re:So basically the Nazis are taking over by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis – often referred to as "playing the Hitler card". The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies[citation needed], if that was the explicit topic of conversation, because a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, because this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.

      From the same source as yours. We're having a discussion about the current Authoritarian regime ruling Canada and how they want to spy on the citizens they are supposed to be working for.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    9. Re:So basically the Nazis are taking over by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      The new, improved, Godwin's Law is: "If anyone says anything about Nazis, I can shout 'Godwin's Law' and shut down the discussion".

      That's not a new interpretation; that dates back to the 90s. But it also does not in any way defend the actions of Nazis as you claimed. It was merely (and generally humorously) used as an indication that a thread had exhausted all the valid arguments and had devolved to the old fall back line of the Hitler comparison.

      As we have seen here, the original mention of Godwin's Law did not stop the postings here, and nor did it request the end of the discussion (although it has sidetracked it).

      The only people who benefit from that are Nazis, because they can shut down any discussion about Nazis.

      It does not shut anything down. The word "law" in this case does not refer to rule of law, but rather a universal principle. It is not a serious thing that has any real effect, and nor is it something that is ever really used when actually discussing the Nazis. It is used when something else is compared to them. I think that you would be hard pressed to find any examples of a discussion about Nazism actually being being stopped by the application of Godwin's Law.

    10. Re:So basically the Nazis are taking over by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      And as your cited quote said, its application to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies is debatable. You may interpret it that way, but it does not actually make it part of Godwin's Law. Your interpretation may guide your usage of it, but you can't actually say that other people's usage is incorrect.

      In any case, the reference to the law was purely a humorous statement, and really not worthy of this debate.

    11. Re: So basically the Nazis are taking over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it was not. It was drawing a valid parallel with the encroachment against civil, non militarised society being made by an industrialised and militarised autocratic class that is now well advanced in Western nations.

      Godwin's Law's purpose is to end a discussion once it reaches a non sensical level of hysteria.

    12. Re: So basically the Nazis are taking over by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      Godwin's Law's purpose is to end a discussion once it reaches a non sensical level of hysteria.

      I have addressed this point elsewhere, but while some people use Godwin's Law to say that an argument has gone on long enough once Hitler has been mentioned it is not the actual purpose of the law. It is merely an observation, and as such is still applicable in this discussion's context.

      It is also very clear that the person who mentioned Godwin was clearly doing it to be amusing and was in no way attempting to stifle any conversation.

  3. I don't see what the Telcos have to do... by TWX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...when everyone is storing everything on the cloud, and relying on the cloud's encryption to protect them.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:I don't see what the Telcos have to do... by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      Except that everyone is not doing this. The data collected by the big routers and voice switches can still be very incriminating to someone of a criminal or political, but I repeat myself, inclination. All of these capabilities are built into the hardware because the US government and other governments around the world requires it as part of 'lawful intercept' regulations.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:I don't see what the Telcos have to do... by oodaloop · · Score: 2

      You store your phone calls and text messages in the cloud?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:I don't see what the Telcos have to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, my text messages are in fact, in the cloud. So are all of my voice messages. Connected calls, no. Only if the caller had to leave a message. This is by choice and it is awesome. There are other providers, but I am using Google Voice. So I can text and read all of my texts from the computer or tablet. I can make and receive calls from phones, tablets, computers - all with one phone number (the only one I give out). So yes, those texts are stored in the cloud - otherwise I could not see them on the computer. The flexibility of having them there more than makes up for the fact that they can be subpoenaed. If I was involved in something shady, I wouldn't use any text messaging or voice recording and certainly wouldn't carry my phone about when performing dirty deeds... So if the NSA wants to subpoena a couple of "hey, are you going to be home on time today" messages between my wife and I or some "how was that chem final today" messages between my daughter and I - well, I guess they will be bored to sleep by them.

    4. Re:I don't see what the Telcos have to do... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You store your phone calls and text messages in the cloud?

      Sure. NSA's cloud. Epsilon's cloud. CSEC's cloud if you're in Canada.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:I don't see what the Telcos have to do... by zugmeister · · Score: 1

      Restatement of the "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" idiocy. Not even going to trouble myself to refute it.

  4. Not that surprising thanks to CALEA by Xipher · · Score: 1

    Since the US has required access network operators to implement CALEA support many products are already being designed with lawful intercept functionality anyways. Implementing it isn't a problem really, just so long as it's not abused it's not that different from a telephone wiretap.

    --
    I don't know everything.
    1. Re:Not that surprising thanks to CALEA by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Implementing it isn't a problem really, just so long as it's not abused

      The problem is it will be abused. It will be used for things beyond the scope they claimed it will be. It will essentially suffer from the same kind of scope creep all of this surveillance shit does.

      What they say now as "oh, we'll only use this for national security stuff" becomes tomorrow's "well, we had to invent parallel construction to conceal what we do with that stuff we promised was only for national security".

      This stuff is designed to give law enforcement unfettered access to anything, while keeping that access secret from the rest of us. And in the case of Canada, this pretty much bypasses privacy legislation

      I'm pretty much convinced that all elected officials voting in favor of this crap have forfeited all right to claim any of their information is private while saying they have access to all of our information.

      These clowns have been undermining some of the basic premises of Western societies.

      Worthless bastards.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Not that surprising thanks to CALEA by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Worthless? To whom? Maybe you forgot who they work for.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Not that surprising thanks to CALEA by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...just so long as it's not abused...

      Priceless!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Not that surprising thanks to CALEA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You haven't read enough history.

    5. Re:Not that surprising thanks to CALEA by blahplusplus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "The problem is it will be abused. It will be used for things beyond the scope they claimed it will be."

      And that's intentional. Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the elites are afraid of political awakening.

      This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Science on reasoning, reason doesn't work the way we thought it did:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Brezinski at a press conference

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      The real news:

      http://therealnews.com/t2/

      http://www.amazon.com/Democrac...
      http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-G...
      http://www.amazon.com/National...

      Look at the following graphs:

      IMGUR link - http://imgur.com/a/FShfb

      http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesa...

      And then...

      WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Free markets?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      http://www.amazon.com/Empire-I...

      "We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.

      In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."

      Important history:

      http://williamblum.org/

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    6. Re:Not that surprising thanks to CALEA by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Your quote about Chris Hedges was interesting.

      Especially to those of us who've read enough history (or are just old enough) to know that this sort of thing has been believed by pretty much every generation in history.

      First time I ever saw something along these lines was about 40 years ago. And included a quote from Cicero (?) about the failings of the latest generation of Romans at his time...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:Not that surprising thanks to CALEA by bigfoottoo · · Score: 1

      Xipher, if I understand CALEA correctly, it applies to the hardware manufacturers and covers voice, VOIP, and broadband internet. Does CALEA apply to the USER of the hardware. That is, if a person roots his phone and installs an encryption app, does CALEA apply?

  5. But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I just don't get why doing this voluntarily is a good thing.
    If it was regulatory the same work would be needed but then the companies could say to the angry users: "We didn't want to, those people you elected forced us to do it".

    By being voluntary it doesn't make mainstream news, people don't vote against it, and users who do find out trust their telco less.

    1. Re:But why? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I just don't get why doing this voluntarily is a good thing. If it was regulatory the same work would be needed but then the companies could say to the angry users: "We didn't want to, those people you elected forced us to do it".

      By being voluntary it doesn't make mainstream news, people don't vote against it, and users who do find out trust their telco less.

      Maybe because they then want to sell the tech to US telecos trying to comply with CALEA? Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to greed.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:But why? by zugmeister · · Score: 1

      I just don't get why doing this voluntarily is a good thing.

      My read on it is that the telcos don't want to have to comply with laws forcing them to cooperate, so they're just willing to do it in the first place. As a happy side effect, the voluntary implementation would be much less "noisy", saving the telcos from looking like they would happily sell out their customers.
      From the Telco's POV, it's the closest to a win this situation has.

    3. Re:But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because big telco and government are already in bed together. Consider it a Christmas gift from business to government, and a favour that will be returned.

  6. Greater of two evils by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The typical reason for doing this is "if we don't do it first, subsequent legislation will require us to implement an even more onerous system".

    Let's see how that works in practice:

    The government simply waits to see what the telcos implement. If it's *more* than they wanted, they stop and say "well done!". If it's *less* than they wanted, then they proceed with legislation, which they were planning to do anyway.

    In game theory terms, what does this type of policy maximize?

    1. Re:Greater of two evils by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Interesting

      in reality, they will do this, and the government will tell them it doesnt go far enough (no matter how far it goes) and take just a little bit more

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  7. Trojan^D^D^D^D^D^D Canadian Horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trojan^D^D^D^D^D^D The team is ready for infiltration.

  8. Encryptorama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It appears that the time has come for an easy to use encryption technology. One that plugs into your computer and allows you to implement your own encryption scheme (that isn't the same as everyone elses). It should also plug into your phone so that your conversation is encrypted. Sure if its just janie talking to grandma, they can leave it all in the clear. If its banking or business or anything to do with money or personal records, then encrypt.

    1. Re:Encryptorama by mikael · · Score: 1

      But where do you start encrypting? You have to secure your PC against keyloggers and screen-grabbers even if your disk drive and communications are encrypted. And how would be sure that no man-in-the-middle intercept didn't have the processing power to crack the encryption?

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:Encryptorama by zugmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure if its just janie talking to grandma, they can leave it all in the clear.

      Wouldn't it be better if everything were encrypted, so stuff that's actually important / private doesn't stick out like a xmas tree lit in a forest?

    3. Re: Encryptorama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Encrypt, and then be forced to hand over the keys? And risk prison if I have forgotten or destroyed them? Pointless. Privacy - OUR privacy - is dead. Get over it.

    4. Re:Encryptorama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a 2K AES private key system, Linux system with encrypted disk and bootloader, and Cyanogen with maindrive encryption, and the VM you store files on never see the keys.

      of course then, you have the goon squad come with a washcloth, a chair, and a bucket, because congress has no spine.

    5. Re: Encryptorama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      duress key. files in different locations don't get unlocked. most the goon squad gets is some porn.

      Torture and trying to get encryption keys under duress is a stupid idea from an intelligence perspective.

    6. Re:Encryptorama by Agripa · · Score: 1

      But where do you start encrypting? You have to secure your PC against keyloggers and screen-grabbers even if your disk drive and communications are encrypted.

      But even opportunistic encryption would make interception much more costly. Right now it is next to free because everything is being sent over the equivalent of postcards for anybody to read. The evil doers also run the risk of being detected.

      And how would be sure that no man-in-the-middle intercept didn't have the processing power to crack the encryption?

      The same way you know now. If the authentication does not match, then a man-in-the-middle attack has occurred and if that does happen, then you have proof. Do you remember all of the court cases which were thrown out because the plaintiff lacked standing because they could not prove their communications were intercepted? Now they have an easier burden.

  9. In related news ... by PPH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... a grateful Chinese intelligence service thanks Canadian telcos for their assistance.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:In related news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the Canadian telco's thanked Cisco for building the hardware and packages like Netflow and the circle of scumbaggery continued.

      Fuck Amerikkka and everyone who looks like the bitch.

    2. Re:In related news ... by davecb · · Score: 1

      The blackmail branch of the Mafia in Canada would also like to present the ".J Edgar Hoover" award to the monopoly telephone/cable companies of Canada, for making the previously uncooperative ISPs store the information that is their stock in trade.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
  10. This is ridiculous! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If there is any spying that should be done it should be by the citizens of Canada on the government. How many little gold nuggets of corruption would be dug up? Quite a few, methinks.

    Harper, Toewes, Desmarais, Irving, Bronfman... Just the data of these major players in Canada is probably a gold mine of corruption and fraud in and of itself.

    As it stands, terrorism is not being stopped. Elite pedophiles are not being stopped. Innocent citizens are losing their privacy. Government is corrupt and organized crime is rampant. Canada is going to hell in a hand-basket.

    Big brother has been watching for too long.

    Time for little sister to tell.

     

  11. Exactly by future+assassin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We have civil forfiture lawsthat were set up to fight "organize crime" now they are being used by butt hurt Crown Counsels as secondary punishment when the cases dont go their way. Even the judges have stepped in the made statements about it in BC.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Exactly by c-A-d · · Score: 1

      As a resident of BC, I am of the opinion that civil forfeiture MUST be tied to a criminal conviction that is RELATED to the crime committed.

      --
      some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.
  12. now that cell phones are powerful computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now that phones are powerful computers, there's no reason not to have PGP-style end to end encryption for all voice and IM traffic, with public key encryption.

    Trick is, it has to be a de-facto standard, or you run into the problem that Bob can't call Jane because they use different voice encryption programs, and Jane can't call Alice, so nobody wants to use it.

    It has to be as simple as "install this app", and as strong as PGP.

    1. Re:now that cell phones are powerful computers by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      It has to be as simple as, "it's pre-installed, and negotiates the highest security possible between any two (or more) parties having a conversation of any type."

    2. Re: now that cell phones are powerful computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's why my company relies on Skype. Microsoft assures us that it's safe, secure, and reliable. Plus, most people have Skype, and the ones who don't can download it for free. I entrust my company's finance, patent research, and communications only to Microsoft, the secure solution.

    3. Re:now that cell phones are powerful computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's pre-installed, it will be pre-compromised by the government.

      No... such a thing would have to be out of reach of those who want mass-surveillance on everyone.

    4. Re: now that cell phones are powerful computers by zugmeister · · Score: 2

      I'm fairly sure you were going for the "funny" tag, but just in case you were serious...
      When a company assures you your information is secure, look at what recompense you will receive as a result of them being wrong. That figure is a great indicator of how confident the company is in the security of your information.

  13. The sound of people expressing feigned surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and genuine outrage

    is appalling.

    --Legal.Troll (KAB)

  14. I call BS by TallahassZ · · Score: 5, Informative

    As an engineer who worked with Eastlink a few years back, I can say with 100% certainty that the RCMP monitor every fucking packet that traverses Eastlink's network. I know because I assisted in the installation of the RCMP's "blackbox" that sits on the inside perimeter of Eastlink's boarder routers. Big Brother HAS ALWAYS been watching, folks.

    1. Re:I call BS by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      As an engineer who worked with Eastlink a few years back, I can say with 100% certainty that the RCMP monitor every fucking packet that traverses Eastlink's network. I know because I assisted in the installation of the RCMP's "blackbox" that sits on the inside perimeter of Eastlink's boarder routers. Big Brother HAS ALWAYS been watching, folks.

      Yes, but you're neglecting to explain why they want/need them.

      Prior to IP phones, the feds would get their court order, go directly to the targets residence, and put their recording device on the pedestal outside to record their analog call directly. They didn't even need to contact the phone company.

      Then, along came digital. Now the traffic at the pedestal is white noise. They go to the phone company to ask them to record the call... the phone company would look in the documentation for their Softswitch and say "FBI phone tap isn't a checkbox we have..."

      So what are the feds to do? Well, they just stick your typical Packet Analyzer on the network (thats what that blackbox is) and then somehow flag the traffic they want to get. I'm not sure how they flag it... I suspect they do something to the targets phone. About 5yrs ago I handled the CALEA requests for a telco and I never saw anything relating to those boxes, so whatever it is they do, it doesn't have anything to do with the phone company.

      The one thing I do know is that those boxes (carnivore) cannot be recording all calls. There's just too much traffic for a rack-mount box to be able to gather all of it, or even decode a good portion of it to find interesting bits.

      I think that what the telcos are saying here is "Don't make us do anymore of this carnivore stuff... the softswitch stuff is improving and in the near future it'll be just as easy to record as the old analog lines were. Maybe even easier!"

      I'm not arguing for or against it... I'm a pretty big privacy advocate... but it's not nearly as black and white as you're making it seem.

    2. Re:I call BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a employee at a small ISP (we didn't have engineers :), I'll back you up that the RCMP did that there as well. As we only had five employees I won't say where I worked, but it was in Ottawa.

    3. Re:I call BS by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      If a court order is ready then a telco will log and track all calls or network use as needed and requested.
      The issue with that is the number or device or network been tracked is now in a database at the telco.
      The security services in the US, UK did notice that over the years when they put in request for tracking, their case falls apart.
      The people of interest just escape or the flow of information stops. The telco, billing and legal system seems to ensure people of interest are able to see the lists of new networks tasked for surveillance.
      To counter that many nations are rushing out to find contractors and hardware to try and get into the telco networks with no paperwork or court contact. Parallel construction is now been made easy and legal. If the security services can get into the networks so can ex and former staff.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:I call BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why the fuck did it take you so long to post your comment?

  15. HEY!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's this all about?!?

  16. Another angle by Gliscameria · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if you don't believe that the government will use these backdoors for evil, what's to stop anyone else? The more backdoors and surveillance they build into the system the more likely it is that someone one will find and exploit them. Plus, there's a lot of money in information. I don't think it would take too much convincing to get someone with access to go rogue and start feeding corporate/tech info to the highest bidder.

    --
    X
    1. Re:Another angle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't corporate folks be encrypting on the front end so that it would take a warrant to get the encryption keys. All they see is white noise.

  17. Dudley Do-Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    DDR = East Germany

  18. No no no no no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Voluntary surveillance?

    Um, so the surveilled get no say?

    so it's not a matter of law?

    seriously.. .why are they trying to pick a fight?

  19. Nonsense by ruir · · Score: 1

    They have had mandatory surveillance for a long, long time.

  20. Needn't be BS by davecb · · Score: 1

    The devices are probably little morer than a circular buffer, so slower equipment can select and process stuff they find interesting without having to run at wire speed. Doing the wire-speed DPI (with a sandvine box) costs way too much money.

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  21. Canada is not a civilized country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, mates, but Canada is a backwards shithole.

  22. hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just another proof how Governments are eroding citizen rights. Who the fuck wants to attack Canada? Maybe Canada should not follow into USA footsteps and just get the fuck out of the Middle East I mean why the fuck are they there in the first place? They wanna show that they are macho or something like the USA? It's amazing that humans haven't evolved enough to stop committing the acts of violence and bring oppression onto others. STUPID FUCKING MONKEYS! HUMANS ARE BELOW MONKEYS!

    In the USA, their plan was to pretty much destroy the constitution and just use the patriot act as an excuse against any law breakers not just the so called terrorist, well except the banks and wall street are off the hook.

    Surprise surprise nothing has changed in the house and senate, $1.1 trillion spending bill. I mean what's a trillion here and there anyway, right. That's okay because the poor USA citizen is nothing more than a cash cow for the government and corporations that control it. So we will continue to have a shitty overpriced health care system, pay property taxes because we don't really own the land or home, pay other fucking taxes that supposedly pays for roads, police, schools, etc... on top of property taxes. That 1.1 trillion could of paid for schools, police, etc... and give that tax payer a break from property taxes or even invest into a public options insurance. In 3 1/2 decades usa collected about 50+ trillion in tax revenues. Where the fuck did it all go away?

  23. Oh boy! More stuff to keep an eye on! by djfuq · · Score: 0

    In god we trust, in all others we monitor.

    --
    Dj fuQ [url="http://djfuq.org"]djfuq urges you to listen to the beats[/url] [url="http://djfuq.org"]http://djfuq.org[
  24. Two evils by Livius · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure who I would expect to abuse this more, the telecoms or the government.

  25. Flawed by design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work in telecom, and virtually all core network elements have legal intercept capabilities built in.
    Nothing really new here.