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."
1. High costs to customers, check.
2. Slow speeds, check.
3. No expenses spared upgrading intercept capabilities for the government, priceless!
...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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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*
I think we're at ~1943 already.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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.
Godwin in 2. Not bad, Slashdot.
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.
'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.
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
'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.
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.
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
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.
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
DDR = East Germany
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.
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.
They have had mandatory surveillance for a long, long time.
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
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.
I'm not sure who I would expect to abuse this more, the telecoms or the government.
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.