FCC Rules VoIP Must Be Tappable 568
pengie2 writes "The FCC has unanimously approved the U.S. Justice Department's bid to expand CALEA to broadband and VoIP networks, according to reports from SecurityFocus and News.com. This means, following a mandatory public comment period, service providers will have to wire their networks for easy law enforcement surveillance, the way phone companies do now. The feds have wanted this for a long time." Ebon Praetor adds a link to Reuters' version, writing "In addition, the FCC has decided that the push-to-talk, or walkie-talkie, functions available on phones from Nextel should also be subject to the same tapping regulations that regular phones are."
The last thing I need... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The last thing I need... (Score:5, Funny)
See if they can make this illegal.
Re:The last thing I need... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The last thing I need... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The last thing I need... (Score:4, Informative)
Since most, if not all, service provider VOIP networks have controlled access - then this is very doable from a voice tapping perspective.
The problem comes into play when you are talking about the wider internet and non-controlled access. End users could encrypt their data communications - even using IP tunneling in the form of VPN (virtual private network) in addition to multiple layers of encryption.
The authorities could sniff the packets - but wouldn't get much useful information. Further decryption would be required - which negates the 'instant access' that Federal Agents are seeking, and used to with the PSTN (public switched telephone network).
With the ubiquity of VPN - I think it would be problematic to bring a 'no encryption' rule into effect; businesses would squawk at the loss of flexibility and attendant profitability.
Oh well it was nice while it lasted (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh well it was nice while it lasted (Score:5, Insightful)
Do try harder (Score:5, Insightful)
How about encrypt and encode your messages into images and then post them on places like fark or deviantart? Simple enough. I'm not stupid why would a terrorist be?
How about our good friends in the government get off their lazy asses and start passing legislations that will make people hate us less not more?
Do try harder-Trail of fears. (Score:5, Insightful)
People have been hating us since the beginning. That King George was pretty pissed off. Then there's that whole Hawaii thing. Or the Phillipines. So what makes the present special?
Re:Do try harder (Score:5, Insightful)
The only quality that a terrorist has in spades is FANATICISM. Did Timmy McVeigh sound all that intelligent to you? Do Bin Laden's broadcasts show an analytical mind? Does the IRA really seem to have it together, organizationally speaking?
Why then the assumption that they're magnitudes of times more intelligent than the rest of the lusers out there?
Re:Do try harder (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Do try harder (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, fingerprints are a well known aspect of catching criminals. Despite that, people are still busted because they left fingerprints behind.
Think about that a bit before going into the "This is easy enouhg to bypass" rationale.
Re:Do try harder (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do try harder (Score:4, Funny)
I'd much rather have seven porn stars.. I'm thinking that'd be much more fun down the stretch of the eons...
Yeah, yeah, it's rude and crude. Sue me.
Re:Do try harder (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't be too much of a stretch for an omnipotent creator, either.
Re:Do try harder (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Do try harder (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, but then you have seven women endlessly telling you how they've had bigger.
Re:Do try harder (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Do try harder (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe if we stuck to being big and not bad we wouldn't be so hated. The United States is not nearly as bad as a lot of other countries but the difference is that we stick our heads in everywhere while most of those little dictatorships only terrorize their own people. Hegemony will always create ill will. No one likes to be dominated, especially the US. Just look at the relationship between the US and the UN. The US doesn't want the UN to make any decisions that directly affect the US economically, politically, or criminally. Other countries feel the same way about the US, considering the US's incredible influence, as the US feels about the UN. It's not that they hate our freedom or our economy or our way of life in general. Those who suggest that are living outside of reality.
just like everyone hates Walmart and Starbucks and the big companies. why because they are big.
Actually I hate Walmart because they pay low wages, overwork their salaried managers, demonstrate sexist practices, are unethical, and drive small businesses out of town. I hate starbucks because all I want is a fucking large coffee, not a grande house blend or whatever the hell they call it. To be honest I don't actually hate starbucks, their actually a pretty good company but the pretentious fuckers who frequent/work there really put me off.
Re:Oh well it was nice while it lasted (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Oh well it was nice while it lasted (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need stegan-what-he-said. The picture can be the message. When the picture on a webpage changes, you carry out your instructions.
Someone is going to point out that anyone stupid enough to fly a plane into a building might have difficulty with advanced topics like steganography. Someone else is going to say that the NSA can crack it. That's all nonsense: folks have been putting a candle in the window as a signal for as long as there have been candles and windows, and the internet is a far more visible yet far less obvious way to send a signal.
Re:Oh well it was nice while it lasted (Score:5, Insightful)
Your method is indeed hard to defeat, but mostly because it's so severely limited in expressive power.
Re:Oh well it was nice while it lasted (Score:3, Insightful)
This won't suffice as a full method of communication like calling someone up or sending someone an e-mail, because the two parties have to establish when the message is going to be sent, where it will be sent to, and how the recipient will pick up and decode the message. If that was done over a tapped VoIP line the fact that you encrypted and attempted to hide the payload is kind of beside the point.
Re:Oh well it was nice while it lasted (Score:5, Funny)
Unless it's funny. That's why Al Quaida had to stop using it's initial protocol, which consisted of references to Natalie Portman and hot grits being poured into pants.
The number of question marks in the typical underwear gnomes joke - that's code too, if you know what it means. The frequent use of Admiral Ackbar saying "It's a trap" on www.fark.com - code. "In Soviet Russia..." jokes - not code, but that's just to throw us off.
Re:Oh well it was nice while it lasted (Score:3, Funny)
You actually spend time analyzing the checksums of porno images?
Re:Oh well it was nice while it lasted (Score:4, Insightful)
But clearly not enough for their intel. The feds aren't asking VoIP companies to keep call logs that can be reviewed by subpoena. They're asking for the ability to actually tap the calls. Big difference.
Re:Oh well it was nice while it lasted (Score:4, Interesting)
And once they'd found it, and decrypted it, they'd still be left having to crack the code.
"Honey, could you pick up a chicken on the way home?" might mean "rent a van," "deliver the bomb now," or "Honey, could you pick up a chicken on the way home?"
The spooks are good, I'll give them that. I'll assume they'll crack my messages. .
KFG
Re:Oh well it was nice while it lasted (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with your logic is that it assumes that this is simple enough that every would-be terrorist would just do it that way.
a.) Not looking would be painful if somebody managed to get away with it. Just on the off chance that something MIGHT have been found.
b.) It's simple enough to wipe your fingerprints off a gun or a glass, yet there are people who still don't
Re:Oh well it was nice while it lasted (Score:4, Interesting)
The Internet is full of drop boxes and cutouts and other opportunities to play well-publicised spy shenanigans. And when you consider that a rotten log in a park in Berlin was secure enough to avoid the attention of most of the East German spy apparatus for a couple of months, there's really no chance that any credible level of signals intelligence will find an even modestly competent bad guy.
Re:Oh well it was nice while it lasted (Score:3, Interesting)
If you have real data to send, it gets encrypted and goes out in the next scheduled transmission. If not, you encrypt and send some worth
Re:Oh well it was nice while it lasted (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, this still happens... but without the silliness of disguising it as laundry (which never fooled anyone). International spymasters run numbers stations [spynumbers.com], which just read out random-like numbers continually. Most of the numbers are random, but at certain pre-arranged times a spy will listen to the station and copy down his coded instructions.
Civilians can only speculate how often an actual message goes through, and how much is just chaff
Re:Oh well it was nice while it lasted (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhelvetians.h
Encryption anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Encryption anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would people start encrypting phone calls when they won't even use PGP? After all, phones haven't been encrypted in the past anyway.
Re:Encryption anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
You too can use an unbreakable VoIP system! (Score:4, Interesting)
# smallvoip.sh
# VoIP software capable of bypassing FBI wiretap regulations.
# Warning: use or posession of this software may be a federal crime in the United States of America. Download this software at your own risk.
# Copyright 2004, 0x0d0a, released under the GPL
# Usage: smallvoip remote-username remote-ip-address
# You must have a shell account on the remote machine.
# Run on each of the two machines involved in the call.
# Duplex audio support required.
# TODO: pass through lame or oggenc for better bandwidth usage. This will make the second line slightly longer.
# LIMITATIONS: only one user per host at once
# I recommend setting up public-key ssh authentication with this software.
nc -l -p 7001 >/dev/dsp &
ssh -R 7000:`hostname`:7001 $1@$2 "cat
Hmm. My high-security, encrypted Internet phone doing VoIP.
Now, I have to ask the people in charge of Homeland Security: do you really, truly, honestly think that you have *any* hope of keeping anyone from writing such a two-line program? Any *IX user with a bit of experience could write this piece of software. In addition, the fact that it contains voice data is completely undetectable to the outside world, so there is no practical way to "catch" someone using such a system.
It is true that this is a very simple program, but it can also be very easily extended into a full-blown encrypted voice communication program, without the minor limitations here that make this annoying for day-to-day use. In addition, there are a vast number of extant Internet systems for communicating that cannot be wiretapped by the FBI -- PGP/GPG contains no back doors to allow wiretapping of email communications. Frost (on the Freenet platform) can disguise the very fact that an association exists between two users. These systems are rarely used, but they are also not hard to deploy, and if the FBI insists on forcing conventional voice communication to be breakable, there is little incentive not to use systems such as the one that I have demonstrated here.
That's why anyone with half a brain uses (Score:5, Interesting)
Encryption is the way gents.
Simon.
The Police don't get to do this often . . . (Score:4, Informative)
Under 18 USCA 2518, the FBI has to apply for a warrant from a court before it can obtain a wire tap. This isn't your ordinary search warrant either. In the criminal justice realm, it's referred to as a "superwarrant."
There's a limit on how long the government can tap your phone for before it has to go back and re-apply. In addition, they've got to show a) the type of information the tap is going to obtain, and b) that there's no other way to get the kind of information they're looking for, other than a wiretap.
There are a few caveats for situations involving national security, organized crime, and immanent danger of death or serious injury, but even there, the agency intercepting the wire communications has to apply for a superwarrant within 48 hours of starting the tap.
Oh, and if they tap you, or try to get a warrant and fail, they've got to let you know within 90 days of ceasing surveilance (or of the denial of the warrant application).
It's not like the government is running around tapping your phone lines willy-nilly.
--AC
Re:The Police don't get to do this often . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I don't want to pander to the tinfoil hat crowd, but I'm old enough (barely) to remember the scandal that COINTELPRO under the Nixon administration caused. Basicly, the FBI was used to spy on and discredit people and organizations that were perceived as enemies of the administration. I'm not convinced things have changed enough to prevent that from happening again. Why make it easy on them?
Re:The Police don't get to do this often . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Benjamin Franklin: They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
I would say that the "forces of security" are pretty much running free in Iraq. I'm sure they have no problems tapping whatever phone they like, surveilling who they please and Abu Ghraib showed that some use of torture was being done. This is not a state I would care to live in and neither would you in all likelihood.
However, this is not enough to stop domestic terrorism there, is it? People are still getting their heads chopped off on a regular basis. Hussein ran the place like a prison camp and was able to keep order. We've set up a wishy-washy police state and that doesn't work.
Increasing police powers in a mostly free state tends to lead to what Jerry Pournelle has taken to calling "Anarcho-tyranny". What is Anarcho-Tyranny? Well, basically the police have the power and the right to make any ordinary, law abiding citizen's life hell (witness the number of run-ins with the TSA of late) but not enough power or will to stomp down hard enough to eliminate terrorism, crime, etc. The police apparatus increasingly spends its time enforcing draconian and silly rules (don't take any pictures of that bridge son - http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com/artiststateme
The police have more than enough resources and powers to fight terrorism. The lead up to 9/11 did not involve a valiant group of law enforcement agents fighting against evil, ACLU controlled judges putting legal barriers in their way. No, it involved interdepartmental politics, head office vs branch office nonsense, head in the sand denial and would not have been prevented with more wire-tapping.
W-R-O-N-G (Score:5, Informative)
Hope you feel safe, 'cause if you gave up all those rights for ... whatever it was you got, then you just got angloed down, mi amigo.
Re:W-R-O-N-G (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been a fairly vocal critic of the Patriot Act, and have a lot of major concerns about it. I'm having a hard time getting all that worked up about what I read in that link you provided, though. If everything in the Patriot Act is really that tame, I'm going to go so far as to say that my worries were mostly unfounded.
Of course, I didn't read through the link with fine scrutiny, so I will allow that I may have missed or misread something, but if I did, I'd be very interested to hear what it was.
Re:W-R-O-N-G (Score:5, Insightful)
- use the local system by encoded(encrypted) in a different way.
- use a different means of communication.
Al Qaeda has been using human carriers as well as encoding into messages on the internet with switching prearranged e-mail addresses. For all intense purpose, we have no means of tracking them. And the feds know that. Patriot act was not intended to be used against terrorists. Good example is that Ashcroft promised many times prior to pat I that it would only be used against terroists. Then to help push pat II, he made the argument that it had been used against a number of drug pushers, rapists, etc. Ok, so these are bad people. But how soon does it get used against everyday citizens. My guess it about 2.5 years, about 1 month after it was passed.Re:The Police don't get to do this often . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
But, as the First Circuit Appeals Court have recently ruled, store/forward data is not covered under wiretap regulations, so your example is invalid. See http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/30/2
Oh, and if they tap you, or try to get a warrant and fail, they've got to let you know within 90 days of ceasing surveilance (or of the denial of the warrant application).
Unless it's Patriot-related, in which case you'll never know. And it'll *all* be Patriot-related, won't it?
Another issue too. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why can't someone and his criminal buddies just set up a SIP-based VOIP channel between them and encrypt the traffic? Seems safer that way....
Or better yet-- there are areas where VOIP would be *required by law* to be encrypted, such as between doctors discussing information protected under the HIPAA act.
Re:That's why anyone with half a brain uses (Score:3, Informative)
Nice in theory. Think back in early 90's when phil was getting nailed for pgp. The FTC was doing their job and getting ready to put him away for a long time. Then the NSA stepped in and told FTC to do nothing. When FTC balked, they apparently showed them somethings. After a day, all charges were dropped. This is a historical fact.
Take the above as you will and apply it against what you suggested.
Re:That's why anyone with half a brain uses (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the plan [fourmilab.ch].
"Trusted Computing" and "The Secure Internet" [fourmilab.ch] are double-plus ungood euphemisms for COMMAND & CONTROL (over you).
A world with 100% accountability is damn depressing. Anyone who says otherwise either hasn't seriously thought about the implications, or has, but thinks he's among the few who stands to benefit from stopping the natural freeflow of information.
--
How feasible is this? (Score:3, Insightful)
$1.99 web hosting [carbonblock.net]
Re:How feasible is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Cracking encryption. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Encryption can secure a communications link. Properly used Alice can talk to Bob with reasonable protection from Eve tapping the link halfway between them.
2. Encryption can secure stored data. Properly used, Alice could protect the files on her keychain should Eve filch it out of her purse.
Encryption will not:
1. Secure the ends of a link. If Eve physically installs a keylogger in Alice's keyboard then it doesn't matter what crypto she uses. Come to think of it, the old saw applies: all bets are off if an attacker has physical access to a terminal.
2. Preclude treachery and incompetence. Law enforcement may have threatened the other end of your link who is letting them see everything in return for light treatment. A while back, NPR ran a story about police officers who took over a kiddy porn website and roped in a pile of customers. Encryption doesn't help if the other end of the conversation isn't who you think it is. Maybe the other side left his passphrase taped under his keyboard. "Rubber-hose cryptanalysis" is what they call it when the police starting leaning on you.
3. Prevent the government from taking an interest in you. Certain uses of it may even draw their interest. Staying out of view of larger predators is often the best defense.
4. Conceal the existence of the link. Often the government only needs to prove Alice talked to Bob on 7/24/02 at 3:24p.
5. Somewhat OT but something else encryption doesn't do: Allow Alice to share data with Bob while simultaneously preventing Bob from divulging it to Eve. Both #1 and #2 apply. Bonus points if you understand what this scenario applies to.
What this all boils down to is that encryption is largely ineffective against old-fashioned police work. It is also worth noting that Al Queda and others are notorious for using low-tech communications and isolated organizational cells. Don't give those hunting you terminals and only the minimum in physical links to play with. If you're a criminal, try to work alone if possible and keep your mouth shut. If you are a crook or a terrorist, communications are the least of your problems. Your partners in crime and your own mouth are far more dangerous.
Re:How feasible is this? (Score:5, Funny)
What makes you think the government doesn't have some technology you can't even fathom?
If they were that far ahead, I'd be writing this from prison.
Re:How feasible is this? (Score:3, Funny)
I hope you enjoy your stay in our fine correctional facilities.
Re:How feasible is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
How science works. It consists of open, institutional critisism by qualified peers. The larger the community, the more people can and will contribute critisism.
In a world where this does not exist, it will invariably lead to many bad ideas, ideas that are not abandoned. Even though you may recruit the best brains on the planet, they are still just humans, and they can't perform without this critical component of how science works.
That's why I'm pretty sure that no major breakthroughs will happen in secrecy.
Smaller breakthroughs, OTOH, can happen in secrecy. It is conceivable that Shor's algorithm will be implemented on a secret quantum computer, but only after the civil society has done most of the work. They will certainly try.
Just take a look at the most hefty project we know was done in secrecy: Manhattan Project. They had the best brains. Still it was not very fundamental science, and many of the participants got bored out of their minds. It was definately not technology I can't fathom.
In other words, wholesale data tapping (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
For more information: (Score:5, Funny)
Immigration Canada [cic.gc.ca]
Re:For more information: (Score:3, Informative)
For those of you who don't RTFA, note that the VoIP tapping in question refers to "managed" VoIP, which means VoIP that "touches" the PSTN. Computer-to-computer VoIP calls are not covered by the FCC's decision.
Data. Voice. What's the Difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
What about open source VoIP packages? Is anyone who sets one up suddenly a "provider?"
Voice Chat over AIM / MSN Messanger (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it illegal to write a small voice chat application with some encryption without a backdoor for the feds?
I'm sorry but there is no way to stop people from comunicating privately over the internet if they want to. Its a losing battle, thats costing companies that do fine work, such as VoIP far too much money.
Re:Voice Chat over AIM / MSN Messanger (Score:3, Insightful)
Presumably, if you live in the USA, land of the free, it is or soon will be illegal. Just like it would have been under Saddam Hussein or is under Col. Gaddafi or Dear Leader in North Korea.
You gotta appreciate the freedom that this sort of thing gives you; if the feds couldn't tap your phones how would they be able to protect you???
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Monitoring happens at the switch (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Monitoring happens at the switch (Score:4, Informative)
If you happen to get a cable modem with an MTA (Multimedia Terminal Adapter) built-in (which would serve as your VoIP box), then your ISP will configure two streams for you, one for data, one for voice. (This is where using cable modems for VoIP is truly superior, I think, in that you have a dedicated stream that is prioritized, rather than trying to use the priority bits in the IP headers, which although I may be wrong, is how I understand that regular VoIP is done).
The dedicated stream for your voice goes through a centralized server, which if the police get a warrant, etc., will log every packet, as well as who the call was made to, and for how long. Clearly CableLabs was planning for this requirement even before it became official.
More information here [packetcable.com] (PDF file, PacketCable Electronic Surveillance Specification).
-- Joe
Re:Monitoring happens at the switch (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably the CO where the DSL line is hooked up to is the preferential point-of-tapping, since that way you also catch packets that might go astray (e.g. spoofed packets).
Tapping software is advanced enough (and why shouldn't it be) to filter out and reconstruct VOIP streams.
It's unlikely that the authority to tap is used sparingly (i.e. used only on one end of the conversation). For example, in The Netherlands a warrant to tap a line extends not to just one phone line, but any one that calls that phone line can get tapped as well, regardless of suspicion (so, if you call Don Vito, and his line is tapped, your line will now also be tapped, just to see if you'll call any other mobsters).
This of course results in masses of data (much of it duplicated) that the police would have to sort through - that is truly a growth market. Write software for it and become rich.
Also, ISPs are increasingly willing to supply data without a subpoena or warrant.
Using codes and stegonagraphy won't always be much help. For example, a Dutch blackmailer was arrested when he looked at a car-ad that contained coded information about the drop-off point of the money he'd demanded. Turned out that the ad was only clicked on about 3 times (he should have picked a more popular model), so placing an ad wasn't really that "broadcast" as he'd thought. Also, the anonymous proxy service that he paid for ratted him (or at least his credit-card number) out immediately.
The bottom line is that the internet is FAR from a safe haven for terrorists, or even common criminals. Actual real life terrorists are far more likely to use 50 year old spying techniques that still work well (like deap-drop boxes, placing ads in papers, etc.).
Of course, the more people come to realise this, the less useful all these measures become; to get a bit political, the potential for abuse is enormous. The EU is considering making it mandatory for ALL communications (of ALL citizens/companies, no due cause) to be stored for seven years, "just in case".
Just think what a political/economical opponent could do with seven years' worth of your most intimate communications (while terrorists are happily communicating using WWII spying techniques). A bit more than that Nixon dude could ever have achieved with those pesky tapes.
No problem here :) (Score:3, Informative)
I still like PGPfone tho... for pure historical reasons.
Good (in appropriate measures)... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nevertheless, we also have a compelling public interest in keeping Big Brother from using the backdoor to enforce stuff that goes beyond keeping the peace and encroaches on our fundamental (and hard earned!) liberties.
The bottom line is that blocking all law enforcement access to these technologies is going to cost people their lives, but letting the pigs sniff around where they don't belong is going to ruin everyone's life. This is just another balancing act in the giant circus we call a democratic society.
So, rather than moaning about one side of this argument or another, doesn't it make sense to focus on getting just the right sweet spot in between?
Re:Good (in appropriate measures)... (Score:5, Insightful)
>
> So, rather than moaning about one side of this argument or another, doesn't it make sense to focus on getting just the right sweet spot in between?
There is no sweet spot.
Technology levels the playing field. Technology is an equalizer. A little over a century ago, "God made all men. Sam Colt made them equal." Today, most democracies and representative republics, even the US, have gun control.
If you and I can encrypt our conversations using a microphone, a computer, some Free client-side software, and some TCP/IP packets, then so can the bad guys. We're all potential providers of VOIP service. ("When outlaws have strong crypto, all crypto ends up outlawed!" :)
In an age where technology equalizes citizen adn terrorist, there's no balancing act to be had: Choose - security or liberty - because you can't have both.
So we bring out Ben Franklin - fine. But it's been three years. The people have spoken, and made it pretty clear that they neither want nor deserve either liberty or security.
And if the job of a representative is to respond to his constituents' wishes as best as he can, then our reps are doing a pretty good job of it: Deny liberties to all, and protect the security of those whom they can protect. (Namely themselves and their future lobbyist careers. But it's better to see that secure than nothing secure. :)
Re:Good (in appropriate measures)... (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue isn't the fact that the FCC has mandated that a back door be installed to monitor VoIP traffic, but how the government uses this. If a law enforcement agent has probable cause and can get a legal warrant to tap someones VoIP communication, I'm all for it. My concern is the kind of "warrantless" searches that legislation like the Patriot act provides. If the power is used in accordance with the Constitution, it is protection; if not, it's tyranny.
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:3, Informative)
VoIP-to-Phone needs another name... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good. And good Again. (Score:3, Insightful)
As the cliche goes, if you're not a criminal, you have nothing to worry about. If you're paranoid, I'd guess you shut up anytime a cop comes within hearing distance.
Do we have a right to privacy? Sure. Do we have a right to keep criminal conversations private? No. Is this subject to abuse? Sure. Will we be abused by criminals who conspire in private? Of course.
Given the choice between giving criminals the freedom to conspire in private or the ability of the FBI to wiretap criminals, I've no problem opting for the former.
In any case, the net is a public place. Nothing there is private.
Re:Good. And good Again. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not paranoia. These days people are being arrested [thenation.com] for carrying anti-Bush signs.
Re:I call BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Heay genius, if this guy violated the law then why the hell did the judge throw out the the case and scold the officer for the arrest?
He was arrested. Simple as that.
Yes, exactly! And it was an UNLAWFUL ARREST!
It was the officer who failed to obey the law!
The person who was arrested was a law-abiding victim of a false arrest.
However we are not talking about some rouge cop who made a mistake. He was obeying directives given to the entire police force. The Whitehouse administration/secret dervice issued these orders.
And if you keep reading you'll see we are hardly talking about a single arrest. We are talking about a multiple arrests at multiple places and multiple times. We are also talking about countless other people being intimidated and oppressed with threats of (unlawful) arrests. It has been a systematic willfull supression of speech and a violation of civil rights.
I'll give karma points if you can tell me how any cop walking down the street can just tell you to throw a book away.
Oh goodie! I get free karma points! Oh wait, I hit the karma-cap ages ago.
Try reading the bottom half of page two of the link. The part where the Crawford police cheif says that you can be arrested for wearing a button that simply says "Peace". Presumably you'd be just as arrestable for prominently carrying a book with a big-fat "Peace" on the cover.
-
Re:Good. And good Again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Possibly. But since you seem to acknowledge that a given population has a contrary view point, do they have a valid reason?
but I have no problem with the FBI being able to monitor conversation between criminals.
Sure. I'd venture that on a pure principle level, most people don't.
The problems usually begin with what "criminal" means. The ones who write the law have a pretty good idea of how they want the law to be used, and at the start everyone thinks it's a super idea. "Criminal" is written pretty broadly, trying to cover "the bad guys".
As the cliche goes, if you're not a criminal, you have nothing to worry about. If you're paranoid, I'd guess you shut up anytime a cop comes within hearing distance.
Later on, however, the enforcers would really like to make use of this provision because it's pretty potent. So the definition of "the bad guys" shifts a little through any number of legitimate means, such as changing the scope of what a criminal is to adding new crimes that fall under the original scope.
Then, a set of events takes place and all of the sudden it's really bad to be a "terrorist". And a terrorist is sort of loosely defined, but definitely someone who is against "the state" and what it represents, using any and all means at their disposal, including disinformation and propaganda.
Do we have a right to privacy? Sure. Do we have a right to keep criminal conversations private? No. Is this subject to abuse? Sure. Will we be abused by criminals who conspire in private? Of course.
What's a "criminal conversation"? Because history assures us with countless examples that those who make the decision on what a "criminal conversation" is rarely do it with YOUR best interests in mind.
Is discussing with other like minded individuals your displeasure with the current George W. Bush administration and planning activities to educate the public on the facts and what they can do to kick him out of office a "criminal conversation"?
Want an example? The PATRIOT act, which did away with such minor things like habeous corpus (considered by many to be the cornerstone of our justice system and made no one above the law, one of the fundamental checks and balances ) and passed to deal with "extraordinary threat" in these "extraordinary times"..... being used for a copyright case. [slashdot.org] Legislation that bypasses most of the fundamental US Constitutional rights would NEVER be applied to anything frivolous.
Given the choice between giving criminals the freedom to conspire in private or the ability of the FBI to wiretap criminals, I've no problem opting for the former.
This is the beauty of the whole thing right here. Trivial means in the form of encryption exist that totally negate any benefit law enforcement would gain from such legislation. Most likely, these days, all the necessary tools exist on your computer right now (openssl).
The only people that this would be of assistance against are... well, idiots. Since you know you're going to be discussing things of particular interest to law enforcement, and they have the means to intercept it, it's in your interest to encrypt your communications. So, from a practical sense, the only information you're going to get out of this is that two people spoke to each other which is useless in court.
So... now what? We now have a system in place that's capable of catching none but the most utterly incompetent criminals and can be abused by the government against law abiding citizens.
I know! Let's outlaw encryption. That'll learn 'em.
In any case, the net is a public place. Nothing there is private.
This seems to be particularly specious reasoning. By the same token I can say that the entire planet is a public place, ther
Get used to it (Score:5, Interesting)
The police will get a warrant with your name on it and take it to your ISP and tell them to tap your VoIP traffic. Your ISP will recognize it the same way your receivers client recognizes it. If it's encrypted the police will know you are using encryption. If your worth enough to them, they'll crack it.
They've had it all along for the landlines, there's no reason to think they'd change their mind at this juncture.
Exactly how would this work (Score:3, Insightful)
Criminal Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Why, a vote of FCC5-0Value? (Score:4, Interesting)
>
Then again there is always PGP encrypted P2P
>
Controlling Technology is like fucking without a condom
>
I am sure this will help monitor the common law abiding citizens. Just like Gun-Control keeps guns away from criminals and their organizations.
>
Then again maybe the above ain't no problem to tap. We should all always know that we are being monitored for the good of the nation and blessings of god.
>
OldHawk777
This will only stop dumb terrorists (Score:3, Interesting)
You'd probably find a way to make your call blend in. I mean speaking in code.
Take this example.
"I just talked to mom. She said that she might need surgery on her colon. You should give her a call."
Sounds harmless, but what if it means
"I just talked to [the boss]. She[or he] said that [the time might be right to strike the power plant in city X]. You should [prepare and wait for the go signal]."
LK
Re:This will only stop dumb terrorists (Score:3, Insightful)
People have used codes in that way for thousands of years, and they still have the same weaknesses.
It's much more powerful and effective to send a message encrypted with good asymmetric key cryptography.
Re:This will only stop dumb terrorists (Score:3, Informative)
which stands out like a dogs balls.
steganography and platen codes are about the only way to convey information innocuously.
About the only way for encrypted data to be transmitted innocuously is if it would be innocuous to transfer large amounts of 'static' (or noise or very large random numbers). But somehow I doubt that any covert listener would fail to notice, and be suspicious of such data transfe
No need to worry (Score:3, Interesting)
You can use VoIP with IPSec to secure your phone calls, as long as both sides have the right software installed. The IPSec encryption algorithms are up to you, so if you want to use Elliptic curve cryptography [openssl.org] (as donated to OpenSSl by Sun), you can.
In a word.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The feds have access to existing phone lines, they have access to internet traffic, why shouldn't they also have access to VoIP traffic?
Eventually VoIP will be like email, with the option to use PGP or another form of encryption at both ends.
Tapping VOIP with Ethereal (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, the protocol analysis was excellent. And, sure enough, the dump of the data produced an audio file easily played with XMMS. I was shocked at how easy this was (and once again at how good ethereal is). I no longer have any illusions of privacy due to the 'obscurity' or complexity of the protocols.
So, next time your VOIP provider plays dumb over drop outs, give them a protocol analysis and an audio record of the problem.
Good news everyone! (Score:5, Funny)
Yay!
...
*a few minutes pass*
Your Rights Online: FCC Rules VoIP Must Be Tappable [slashdot.org]
Boo!
--
EU and Data retention (Score:3, Informative)
EU is currenly planning 1-3 year mandatory data retention for all Internet traffic data. The process is right now at the member states' goverments (E.g. the Finnish goverment just decided to support the initiative but the parliament has to still agree..) So for all Europeans, contacting your MP would be a very good idea..
More info here:
Statewatch - EU and Data retention [statewatch.org]
V.
I don't get it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Or are you saying the government should not be able to collect evidence in criminal investigations, even with a warrant?
Re:I don't get it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Cue Orwell (Score:3, Insightful)
Good criminals and terrorists, as do spammers, will try to stay one step ahead of the countermeasures.
Just imagine... (Score:4, Funny)
Ashcroft: All telecommunications are belong to us - intercept...intercept!
Techie: But Johnny, you canna change the laws of physics
Ashcroft (non-musically): Let the eeeeeagle soar!
Techie: But...
Ashcroft (in the style of Homer making a point): I said let
48 hr. Summary: All your rights are belong to US (Score:5, Insightful)
Is anyone else out there starting to get angry? How long until the Deparment of Homeland Security implants RFID chips in our necks? How long until employees are forced to get their employer's logo tattooed on their face after changing their last name and waiving all of their human rights in the employment contract.
Geeez..... what kind of America are we living in?
America, previously land of the free, now home of the Corporate controlled puppet government run by lawyers with the best healthcare taxpayer money can buy.
Re:48 hr. Summary: All your rights are belong to U (Score:3, Funny)
ironic paradox intended
New attack: freedom of assembly. (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly this wire tapping business has gone on long enough.
Any time a person picks up a phone to call someone, there is a subtle change in his thinking if he thinks he might be surreptitiously monitored. There are certain things you just don't say.
How is this different from meeting with someone on the street, perhaps to organize some political effort? If you think you may be overheard, it changes what you say.
(Thinking from a two hundred year old perspective,) the difference is that on the street, you can see who is listening. You know what is being said.
Secret wire taps by a third party subvert the entire process that granting the political freedom of assembly was intended to protect. If I want to speak to someone on the phone, law enforcement should be absolutely limited to compromising that other party in order to get in on the conversation. If there is a second party on the phone, I should get a little flashing light informing me that there is another listener.
I would just switch to Skype [skype.com], except I have no idea how secure their encryption is either.
I wrote a really bitchy blog entry about this a while back right here [blogspot.com], if you care.
Jurisdictional Creep? (Score:3, Insightful)
Immunity for None (Score:5, Insightful)
Black people have always known that our rights are revokable. It seems to me that only when it starts happening to white people that small things like "civil liberties" get to be a problem.
I expect this post to be marked troll or flamebait at best, but it's truly not meant to be that way. It's just the way I see the world because my husband doesn't even tell me how many times he gets pulled over by the police anymore. It's a routine occurence, not worth notice anymore.
Our church group is decidedly anti-Bush. I think most black folks are, despite the photo-op pics you'll see everywhere. Anyway, we had police officers taping our services now again because our preacher speaks out against the corrupt politics in our city and nation.
There is no need to protest because no one in authority cares and is probably behind it anyway. We simply did the next best thing and got a local cable station to air our services. No more police, they can just set the VCR now.
I see young men get harrassed by the police and their pockets turned out because their skin is dark. I know better than to go to the movies with a large purse or maybe even a purse at all on a crowded weekend day, because no matter how large the white woman's purse in front of me, mine will be the one to be searched.
As far as I can see, white people for too long have thought they were immune from this type of thing. It's probably not even the slashdot crowd. It's be the parents and the grandparents of the slashdot crowd.
I saw a post earlier here that asked, who will begin the revolution? I think it will begin right here.
Tapping Push-to-talk? (Score:3)
(Is it just me or do people using push-to-talk speak even LOUDER than when using the phone non Star Trek stylie?)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:3, Interesting)
My understanding is that there's no restriction on intercepting communications between non-citizens under american law.
Disclaimer: I'm neither american nor a lawyer
Re:My Question Is... (Score:3, Informative)
TCPDump & VOMIT
http://vomit.xtdnet.nl/
Next question.
Re:How about tapping this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No problem: end to end encryption (Score:4, Insightful)
Governments are weird and will go to some lengths and spare no expense (all the money is theirs, they just let you use some of it when they want to) to enforce police actions of any sort once they set their collective minds to it. Look at merre olde englande, roving vans to catch people receiving unpaid-for "illegal" TV broadcasts. Geez, look at what is happening in china now and some other places, and who is in the thick of enforcing any amount of government surveillence and censoring and control-good old 'merkin based globalist corporations, all the name brand guys. Look who owns the implantable human tracker microchip, the one called "digital demon" in slang terms- "friendly open source"IBM.
I have no doubt the future will be forced global big brother,massive scale, with little differences between so called nations and global big business, the lines are blurring daily. We are just "human resources" to governments and global bigcos, to buy and sell and command and control, and to do that, they want to track their inventory-to surveil- and to monitor and to enter into databases what their inventory is doing. Encryption, "free" P2P, etc falls well outside those efforts, so eventually they will be outlawed entirely. Look at the proposals for mandatory blackboxes in the cars, and charging a per mile tax/fee will be one day behind that one. Internal passports-coming soon to a checkpoint near you. Newspeak in the media,and don't go against them, lest you become an untermenschen "detainee" and lose any remnants of human-ness.
We are in the "wild wild west" days of the net right now, a few years from now, I don't think it will exist like it does currently. The handwriting, as they say, is on the wall. Free and open and uncensored communication with "the masses" guy is the biggest threat global corporate government faces, so.... they will deal with it whatever it takes.
How many people predicted 3 years ago the sally and molly kidpack were going to get sued for song trading? I know I did, and got roundly accused of tinfoil hat-itis, because "no one is ever going to sue normal small time end users". Got told that a lot of times.
Oh well
There's ways to still communicate semi securely, and the ones who need to do it will do it, but universally? As soon as it gets just a scosh easier and more prevalent so as to start to threaten to become commonplace, expect a rather severe crackdown and smackdown.