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

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

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.

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.