CALEA update

Bobalu writes "Below is a link to a NY Times article saying Nortel has supplied the software needed so: ``Carriers can now begin taking steps to correct technological impediments within their networks that currently prevent law enforcement from being able to carry out court-ordered electronic surveillance directed at suspected criminals and terrorists,'' Attorney General Janet Reno said in a statement. Joy." Click below to get some background, and the link to the story.

The article is actually an AP article, and this is a temporary URL but will probably remain available throughout today. If it's not available, just search your favorite news site which carries an AP feed.

Background: In 1994, the FBI, complaining about pedophiles and terrorists on the internet, got Congress to pass a law requiring all telecommunications providers to make their networks easily tappable. One example of the necessity for such which is still trotted out by the FBI is solving kidnappings - "What if your child was kidnapped?". However, try as I might, I can't think of any situation in which a wiretap (which has to be placed on a known entity) would help locate a missing child. If you know who's got the kid...go get him.

The primary stated reason for the law was that the telcoms were upgrading to digital from analog, and therefore the men in black couldn't just hook up an alligator clip to the wires anymore... the law was explicitly stated to NOT expand law-enforcement access to communications but simply make sure that they could access digital phone lines. The telecommunications companies fought the law until Congress added $500,000,000 in government subsidies for them, when they promptly shut up.

Unfortunately (but expectedly), the FBI has interpreted the law as granting them free rein to tap anything at any time. The FCC is granted the power to implement CALEA - and the current FCC commissioners would make Big Brother proud. So the FBI has sought and received, as of August 30, substantial additional tapping powers - they will now receive the current location of cell-phone users during the tap, the ability to listen in on conference calls even if the tapped party has left the conversation, and a couple of other minor enhancements which slowly yet steadily erode your privacy.

More important, the FBI has also sought the ability to tap packet-switched communications - by which I mean, of course, the big bad Internet. This authority, never enacted in law, has nevertheless been granted by the FCC, to be implemented by the telcoms no later than September 2001.

Recently there have been stories about companies in Russia having to provide the ability for police to tap internet communications. U.S. folks laughed at those poor bastards, living in a surveillance state. The only difference between Russia and the U.S. is: the Russians are more upfront about their surveillance.

See EPIC's wiretap page for more. -- michael

Comments

What a waste of $500b

[rde]

AP Text (which you better not link to, as I've probably breached copyright).

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The FBI reached a first-of-its-kind agreement
enabling telecommunications companies to use computer software made by
Nortel Networks to assist law enforcement agencies in conducting lawfully
authorized wiretapping.

The agreement calls for Nortel, a major supplier of telecommunications
equipment, to provide certain software to its carrier customers. Nortel will
waive the license fees.

The 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act authorized
$500 million for the purpose of reimbursing the telecommunications industry for
its costs in cooperating with law enforcement agencies in wiretapping.

``Carriers can now begin taking steps to correct technological impediments
within their networks that currently prevent law enforcement from being able to
carry out court-ordered electronic surveillance directed at suspected
criminals and terrorists,'' Attorney General Janet Reno said in a statement.

The telecommunication carrier Ameritech also is a party to the agreement. FBI
Director Louis Freeh said the bureau is working toward finalizing similar
reimbursement agreements with other carriers and manufacturers.

About "tapping" the Internet...

[apocalypse_now]

Even if the FBI could intercept any data that is out there, it would be completely useless to them if it is encrypted data. So long as the FBI is not granted a magic key by either consensus among crypto companies or by government regulation, privacy over the internet can and will exist.

As far as tapping digital lines... It should be allowed, but only with a court order. Just like it is with analog lines. Sometimes, there is a justifiable reason for a line to be tapped. Think suspected drug dealer here. The problem is not with the FBI tapping lines, it is with thee frequencey of which lines are tapped. Court orders for line tapping are given out too frequently and with too broad of a spectrum of reasons. Call your representatives in Congress and express your concern with this issue, they will listen (on occassion).
--
Matt Singerman

What about proxies?

[JoeShmoe]

I'm interested in any legal or technical experts who might care to comment on how this type of law affects people who run proxy (or other IP routing) services?

Specifically...remember back in the "good old days" that penet.fi was one of the first host to allow some degree of anonymous access? After someone successfully sued in Finish court for the identity of one of the anonymous e-mailers, the service was shut down to prevent other people from having the same breach in privacy.

What if I ran a proxy service that would allow people to surf the web or other TCP/IP services anonymously?

Since I'm not a telecommunications provider receiving some federal funding...does that mean if I throw out my DHCP/DNS/IP logs every night I'm free and clear? Is there any part of this law that says I NEED to keep a backlog of this information so when the FBI comes knocking I can point out the TRUE identity of someone using my service?

I know there are several proxies out there right now but I do not know if any of them keep or toss information like this and I'm very curious to know if there's anything to mandate logging.

Personally...if I do run a proxy service...I'll probably play dumb and if some federal government want to pay for some training classes well then maybe I'll consider learning how to use the logging features of my proxy software.

- JoeShmoe

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Encrypt encrypt encrypt

[BugMaster ChuckyD]

All the more reason we should all routinely encrypt everything that goes over the network. What is needed is more seamless encryption tools, e.g. if all e-mails are routinely encrypted/de-crypted using public key cryptography without intervention from the user, most people would probably do so.

If internet communications are routinely strongly encrypted all this Big Brother business would become moot. To be sure there are legitimate reasons for the feds to snoop on people, but such a power will be abused (either officialy or by "rouge" agents)

Also this is fundamentaly different from tapping phone conversations in that more and more transactions now take place over the net. Net surveilance would not only include person-to-person communication, but also financial transactions, purchasing habits, reading habits etc etc.

It seems to me that the feds don't really have a compelling reason for this otherwise they would be able to come up with a better reason than the tired old Terrorists/Pedophiles/"Think of the Children" justification.

Have you actualy ever seen any terrorists --Brazil

There's stuff you can do

[philg]

Write your congressman, White House, etc. Just because a law is passed doesn't mean it can't get repealed.

<rant>

And most importantly, don't forget. A lot of people feel ignored online because a paper letter still counts more than an email to a politician. That's because the pol expects the emailer to have forgotten about this by Election Day -- not so easy to do if you're so steamed you can write a letter, lick a stamp and send it. (Or so the theory goes.)

The FCC is appointed by the President -- tell him (or, better yet, the party he's from) that they won't get your vote as long as shenanigans like these persist. And do it, too. Don't buy that "you'll throw your vote away" crap -- if 89% of this country didn't vote for the Democrats or Republicans, how much of a waste is that? IMO, you're probably wasting your vote if you do vote for the two major parties, since both of them probably represent many, many views you find repellant, no matter who you are.

A candidate that forms his opinions based on an overriding philosophy that you agree with may still come down on the wrong side, but with less frequency, and probably not nearly as wholeheartedly as a politician who just checks the party scoresheet -- most of which was probably written by the biggest contributors this week.

I hate to sound so vitriolic, but the ineffectiveness in American politics is the result of the apathy of its citizens -- fostered by those currently in power that characterize our system as "imperfect, but the best we can do."

Well, half-truths are half-right -- it's certainly imperfect, but the two parties that are exactly as different as Coke and Pepsi that is, as different as they need to be to convince you there is any difference at all. Small voter turnouts only help them engineer the elections better -- turn out in force, and vote for the candidate you feel most comfortable with, even if you think he'll only get ten votes.

Treat politicians like employees, or better yet, like vendors -- there's plenty of vendors. If we do, maybe we'll get some customer service. phil
</rant>

Re:There's stuff you can do

[remande]

The FCC is appointed by the President -- tell him (or, better yet, the party he's from) that they won't get your vote as long as shenanigans like these persist. And do it, too. Don't buy that "you'll throw your vote away" crap -- if 89% of this country didn't vote for the Democrats or Republicans, how much of a waste is that? IMO, you're probably wasting your vote if you do vote for the two major parties, since both of them probably represent many, many views you find repellant, no matter who you are.

Before the last election, I was talking politics with some acquaintences, and I mentioned I was voting for Harry Brown (Libertarian). The response I got was along the lines of "Why the hell are you voting for someone who doesn't have a chance of winning?"

This isn't a horserace. In a horserace, you only win if you pick the right horse. In an election, you only win if the majority picks the right horse; if an idiot (or worse) is elected, it doesn't mean a damn that you voted for or against the candidate.

Republicans and Democrats want you to think that there are two candidates for any office: the one the Republicans back and the ones the Democrats back. Bull! They may have the best chances of winning, but that is no excuse for voting for them. For any office, vote for somebody you think will do the job well. Write them in, if you have to!

Is this a dangerous "waste" of a vote? No. Many people vote against one candidate by voting for the candidate of the other major party. But (at least for Presidential elections), splitting the opposition vote is still a vote against. That is, if you want to vote against the Democrat, a vote for the Republican, the Reformist, Jesse Ventura, or Rob Malda will still have the same effect in keeping the Democrat out of office. The Democrat doesn't need the most votes; the Democrat needs over fifty percent of the vote (or you dust off the Constitution and play strip poker; the last candidate wearing clothing gets the Oval Office).

If you are going to vote, vote for somebody. Just voting against somebody is the trap the Republicans and Democrats want you to fall into.

So what if you vote for somebody who has no chance of winning, if you don't think that the candidates that do have a chance are all idiots? There are two possibilities: either you are wrong or you are right. If you are wrong, your candidate may win. If you are right, and only the idiots have a chance of winning, you are no worse off by voting for a useful candidate that loses than by voting for a useless candidate that wins. You still get the same guy in office in the worst case.

Drug Dealers, Terrorists, and Children

[DonkPunch]

Am I the only person who is starting to view these words as red flags?

At the height of the War on Drugs, it seemed that the fastest way to get something passed was to say that it was designed to thwart drug dealers. Now that the American public has grown a little more skeptical of this rhetoric, we've moved on to terrorists. Terrorists are the new boogeymen -- we must do whatever it takes to stop them. You, the citizen, need to forget the Constitution for a while because we, your leaders, are trying to fight terrorists.

We did this with McCarthy (sp?), too. The Reds had to be stopped -- First Amendment be damned. Haven't we learned? What is the next boogeyman? Will it be those porn-downloading, foul-mouthed Anonymous Cowards on the internet?

And then there's legislation for "the children". Long after we've come to our senses with "Commies", "Drug Dealers", and "Terrorists", we'll still be passing stupid laws to "protect the children". It's too dangerous politically to oppose anything cloaked in a "protect the children" argument. It inspires a nice emotional knee-jerk response in the voters and shuts down the higher reasoning and skepticism functions of their brains.

I'm not denying the presence of drug dealers or terrorists in our world today, but I'm tired of leaders who can't come up with better ways to protect me than to force me to give up freedoms and privacy. It has the characteristics of a power-grab disguised as "protection". That is not "protection", it is "manipulation".

If this the only protection they can offer, I prefer to watch out for myself, thanks.

Sorry for the essay. I'll go back to work now.