Big Brother Wants Into VoIP At Any Cost 247
wallaby fly-half writes "An amendment to the CALEA law would make it easier for the government to monitor calls made over VoIP and even temporarily store some packet traffic. Ars Technica reports that the 'bill will put the technology in place to buffer packet streams, and places the job of filtering those streams under government control. We know from the NSA warrantless wiretapping program that the government is not limiting itself to access to under court orders, and the CALEA bill must be considered in light of the capacity it generates.'"
Oke... (Score:5, Insightful)
Raise your hand if you thought VoIP was a really neat idea when it first came out.
Now raise your hand if you still think it is.
Granted it's not really too different from recording Voice, but now you could expect yourself to be extraordinarily rendered if you choose to encrypt your converstations because you have the gall to actually believe the government has no right to recording and storing your conversations, Dub's dirty tricks or not.
Hell, they'll probably outlaw encrypting your own phone calls, next, because (the flag waving) it's (an eagle poses rampant) in (strains of The Star Bangled Banner) the (In God We Trust) best(the blue angels fly overhead) interests (cascading images of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc.) of (Betsy Ross adds another star to her handicraft) America (fanfare of fife and drum) and everybody knows the real patriots don't question any of this.
"sir, you served potential enemies of uh-merika with strong encryption" and we can't be having that.
Ebay constantly in hot water would probably love to score some points with Washington, they're probably already serving tea and crumpets with the NSA right now, along with a side order of Skype backdoors.
dangerous times call for dangerous laws
Re:Oke... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's only until a certain critical mass starts to understand the NEED to do this, and follow through. Yes, they can make examples out of a few people and try to scare everyone away from the idea, but that's no more effective than temporarily manning a speed trap to catch people exceeding the limit. Given the current government's quenchless thirst for things that are none of its business, I wholeheartedly support the use of encryption. PGP, TrueCrypt, and whatever else will get the job done.
Re:Oke... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oke... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oke... (Score:4, Insightful)
- DoI, emphasis obviously mine (note 'when' not 'if')
I wouldn't try using that argument in court against your domestic terrorism and/or high treason charges, but that doesn't change the fact that The Founding Fathers Told You To Do It. Hell, that's WHY we have the right to bear arms - not for shooting each other, but for the purpose of defending ourself from and overthrowing corrupt governments.
Re:Oke... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are there any countries out there experiencing a golden age? Or is the world so intertwined they all go together..
Re:Be prepared to throw one away... (Score:2)
Look at where that got Beirut. They were very democratic and on their way to becoming a more liberal entity in the middle east but subversives like Hezbollah make sure they never achieve greatness. Really makes you wonder who's funding them, who wants chaos in the region and who stands to profit.
Strange... (Score:2, Funny)
You don't get witty anti-Dubya sarcasm like this just anywhere:
Hell, they'll probably outlaw encrypting your own phone calls, next, because (the flag waving) it's (an eagle poses rampant) in (strains of The Star Bangled Banner) the (In God We Trust) best(the blue angels fly overhead) interests (cascading images of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc.) of (Betsy Ross adds a
Re:Strange... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. In two short years, Hillary will be taking her turn with all of the expanded executive powers that Dubya is indulging in. Then it'll be your turn to stammer, "Uh, hey, wait a minute, guys, this executive-dictatorship thing isn't so cool."
The worm will turn. It always does.
Re:Strange... (Score:2)
Re:Strange... (Score:2)
Re:Strange... (Score:2)
Geez....ANYBODY but that bitch....
I really do hope and pray we at least get some viable choices this next time around. I really, really, really hate having to consider my vote as the 'lesser of two evils'.
Re:Strange... (Score:2)
Al Gore would have been the best thing for the US, at least from a conscience point of view. I really like his present efforts on global warming. He is really a smart man... He was a viable choice, rather than the mimbo your country elected.
Re:Strange... (Score:2)
Re:Strange... (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks, I like our system in Canada. Paper based voting. Go in, get a list of names, but an X in the circle. Can't figure out how to put an X into a circle? Your vote doesn't count. It's like a mini IQ test. Too dumb to write an X in the circle? Too dumb to pick a politician too
Re:Strange... (Score:3)
Re:Strange... (Score:2, Insightful)
"People like you"? (Score:2)
People like me? You've obviously assumed that I'm some sort of partisan Republican blindly supporting Bush. I am not, and my comment said nothing to that effect. I am however sick of hearing the same unfunny, unclever, lame commentary on George Bush that obviously attempts to come across as clever. It's not clever, and I'm sick of hearing it. Similarly, I was
Re:Strange... (Score:2)
That is if he leaves. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if he suspended that whole 'limited to two terms' thing so he could Continue To Bravely Fight The Terrorists And Ensure Freedom Abroad. Or CTBFTTAEFA for short.
Re:Strange... (Score:2)
-Eric
Re:Strange... (Score:2)
Re:Strange... (Score:2)
Re:Strange... (Score:2)
In 2004, there was actually talk about "delaying" the elections in light of a mysteriously convenient terrorist threat. Luckily, even Bush didn't have the cajones to go through with it. But they wouldn't hesitate for a second if they thought they could get away with it and were behind in the polls. Sadly, they probably could get away with it now.
That seems like fear-mongering to me. You do know that Bush actually doesn't have the right to delay elections anywhere, right? (Well, except maybe in DC) Ele
Re:Strange... (Score:2)
Re:Strange... (Score:2)
Re:Strange... (Score:3, Funny)
I thought they were going to call it Preserving W's Natural Authority as God for Eternity, or PWNAGE for short.
Re:Strange... (Score:2)
You mean, the same way we don't hear any cerebral commentary about Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry anymore, right?
the real Cerebral comments come in 2 years (Score:2)
Bush bashing is a no brainer at this point (except for the proud or stupid.)
After bush is gone (should they choose to let him) and the next powerless puppet takes over, listen to those people who were ahead of the curve.
Re:Oke... (Score:2)
Re:Oke... (Score:5, Insightful)
If your not with us your with the terrorists or must have something to hide. Yes we wiretap your calls, log all your intertet traffic, and look over your shoulder, but it is to protect you!
You've got to be fucking kidding. Its tyranny.
Re:Oke... (Score:2)
Vote Libertarian.
Re:Oke... (Score:2)
Power to the People (Score:4, Insightful)
Where's our Java applet with SIP over SSL?
Re:Power to the People (Score:2)
Re:Power to the People (Score:2)
Raise Hand Here (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think I'm suddenly going to freak out on VOIP because the US government might start listening in on my calls? I'm actually suprised that they're not already (they seem twitchy about that stuff right now), though this may be a political version of "it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission". Fundamentally, I don't care how my voice gets from point A to point B, but I'm in favor of doing it as cheap as possible. I like the idea of a world where they run one cable (or no cables, woohoo) to my house and all the information flows over it. The tinfoil hat wearers can roll their own VOIP [asterisk.org] for talking to whomever they want to talk to and encrypt it out the wazoo. If they're paranoid enough, they can get multiple wired and wireless connections, split up the packets across them all, and have a grand time of it. As best I can tell, VOIP was never about avoiding the government, it was about talking on the cheap using resources already available.
Now, if they come for my encryption, they'll have to pry it from my cold, dead connection
- Tash
Vrrooommm... [tashcorp.net]
The real reason (Score:5, Insightful)
But then, spying on and harrassing political opponents a la Nixon may not be the main motivation behind it, either.
The BIG concern within the Bush Administration is the threat from people inside of it. They need their own people to know that if they divulge any embarrassing or incriminating information, even anonymously, that they will be tracked down and punished. The war is against potential whistleblowers.
Ever wonder why you never hear interviews with anybody who knew Dubya back in his wild days before he became governor of Texas? Every college friend of every other president had stories to tell, some positive and some not, but not so with George II. Why is this? Well, pretty much everybody with an embarrassing story to tell about cocaine or girls or his desertion from the National Guard now has a cushy high-level job in the government or the energy industry. Better jobs with more power than they'd ever dreamed they'd have, and jobs they're not going to jeopardize by telling stories.
That's how you go from being a horse show official to being head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency with zero experience. Anybody who works in Washington knows there's hundreds - maybe thousands - of 'em.
Without the extensive eavesdropping powers Bush claims, these people would be free to contact reporters or blog information anonymously. By advertising these "powers" via carefully planned "leaks", Karl Rove is letting insiders know that they're taking a big risk if they spill any beans.
And you can bet they'll know who I am as soon as I hit the "Submit" button...
Re:Oke... (Score:2)
Three words: VOIP over TOR
Re:Oke... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oke... (Score:2)
I can't find it, but I think this is actually illegal in the US
Re:Oke... (Score:2)
Import and export are another matter, as encryption hardware is covered by ITAR [wikipedia.org] (International Traffic in Arms Regulations), which means you may need a government permit.
Re:Oke... (Score:3, Informative)
Plenty of Class III permits are still issued, and it's real
"Knife, this is Variable" (Score:2)
As long as the key material is really random, not just generated-by-a-computer pseudo-random, one-time pad encryption is perfectly secure if applied correctly. No re-using pads, in other words (cf. Venona et al).
The definition of "perfectly secure" is a precise one: no attack by an enemy cryptanalyst can determine the correct plaintext with any greater probability than any other putative
Re:Oke... (Score:2)
Re:Oke... (Score:2)
The New Bolshevism (Score:4, Insightful)
Haven't we learned any lessons from the hideous Bolsheviks [antiwar.com]?*
____________________
* Peter Holquist, "'Information Is the Alpha and Omega of Our Work': Bolshevik Surveillance in Its Pan-European Context," Journal of Modern History, 69: 3 (September 1997), pp. 415-450.
Re:The New Bolshevism (Score:5, Funny)
Of course we have! Who do you think's been testing it for us all these years?
The USSR was the alpha test site. We learned that it doesn't work too well in a pen-and-paper world; you end up with something like East Germany's STASI, in which your economy implodes because a third of your population is busy filing reports on the other two thirds of your population... but nobody can actually find the reports to use them for anything.
China is the beta test site. A technologically-advanced state, a mixed economy, and strict information controls. Data storage is too expensive to store everyone's everything, so if you search for something naughty, it just gets blocked. Citizens quickly learn how to circumvent the censorship and/or the logging.
With what we've learned, we're ready to go to full implementation. Search for whatever you like. Talk about whatever you like. Everything gets delivered to you, you're never aware that you've crossed the line until... hang on a sec. There's a knock at my door.
I ... for one ... (Score:2)
Re:The New Bolshevism (Score:2)
Hmm...and now for the REALLY paranoid out there....how do we know that Google itself isn't the govt.?? Now that would be the killer eh? All that data, and gathering more voluntarily from everyone every day? If it were a secret US system....talk about a homerun idea!!
puts tin foil hat back on, adjusts strap...
Avoid the Risk--Use Zfone (Score:5, Interesting)
From the FCC Mandate: From Phil's site: The stupid part of this is that we shouldn't have to do this
You are innocent. You have done nothing to give the government the right to investigate you or collect your phone records with the intent to prosecute you. If you're an American, take a few hours to protect what so many people have fought and died for: your rights to privacy and being innocent until proven guilty.
What next? Is the King of England going to be able to listen in on my VoIP calls?
Re:Avoid the Risk--Use Zfone (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, even if you encrypt, and if by King you mean Prime Minister. The RIP Act forces suspects to reveal encryption keys on pain of imprisonment, whether charged with a crime or not. Useful, huh?
Re:Avoid the Risk--Use Zfone (Score:2)
I hope they have enough room for all of us [gnu-designs.com]...
I'm not the only one who downright refuses to hand over encryption keys, there are thousands and thousands of us (just in the US). We used to be called Patriots (standing up for what we believe in and all), and now we're Un-American.
Oh how the Doublespeak times have changed, eh Orwell?
Re:Avoid the Risk--Use Zfone (Score:2)
Don't worry, they have plenty of space here [google.com]
Re:Avoid the Risk--Use Zfone (Score:2)
So, just hand over the keys.
I'm going to get flamed for this, but perhaps this actually hits the right balance of power between the law enforcement agencies and the public. They can't easedrop on you without you knowing it, and they can't mass eavesdrop on everyone. But if they have good reason to suspect you, and you actually did do something wrong, then they can get evidence they need t
we have a nice balance (Score:2)
The problem with trying to break encrypted messages is that it just can't be done: the government never knows whether they got it, and, on the other hand, such laws are likely primarily going to be used for harrassing people.
Re:Avoid the Risk--Use Zfone (Score:2)
For values of temporarily... (Score:4, Insightful)
Encryption? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Encryption? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, ha ha ha ha! You thought they were REALLY trying to stop terrorism. Oh, bwuahaha, that's a good one! I'm in tears. Hey, hey Bob! Come over here and look a this, it's hilarious!
Re:Encryption? (Score:2)
Re:Encryption? (Score:2)
OK, which dumbass Ayn Rand quote might this be, then?
There are SO MANY that the Randroids jerk off over, it's hard to keep track of them all.
" "Libertarianism, the autism of politics."
Heterodox, commentator on samizdata.net "
Re:Encryption? (Score:2)
Re:Encryption? (Score:2)
* Even more fun than pretending you've never been on the Thruway before and asking the toll booth workers why
Re:Encryption? (Score:2)
Your hypothesis has already been proven, good sir:
http://www.campusmoviefest.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects
Re:Encryption? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe in AES in a closed app being secure.
AES can be trusted, but Skype's PK cannot (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, I think they can't break AES256. But I also think they can break the PK that is used to transfer the AES session key. Why? Because Skype is not intended to be secure for the users. Skype uses Skype as the trusted introducer for the PK negotiation. If the FBI tells Skype to implement a MitM attack, then Skype can do it.
The proper way to implement VoIP or any other internet communcation, is to let people be their own PK introducers/certifiers. And let them use OTPs in situations where it is feasible, which just happens to be pretty common (e.g. your phone and your wife's phone probably spend several hours in the same room together, every night).
Workaround in C (Score:2)
Re:Workaround in C (Score:2)
So is it time for another encryption system? (Score:5, Informative)
For those who don't know, the DES patent is owned by N.S.A. so when you see that Verizon's latest gadget that is triple DES encrypted don't be impressed, Uncle Sammy can get right in.
Seems like what we need at this point is OSS encryption that can't be so easily cracked by N.S.A. It's just a matter of time before Skype/Vonage, etc are required to change their encryption to DES or something that the government can read.
It used to be that the government had better technology always, not so true anymore. So
Yay paranoia (Score:3, Informative)
First off, the patent is owned by the NSA because they developed it.
They developed it because they're the most qualified to come up with encryption and guarantee its security for government use.
Despite a decade plus of DES being in wide use, brute-force attacks remain the most practical means of "breaking" DES encryption
Re:So is it time for another encryption system? (Score:2)
Bullshit!
Stop repeating urban legends as fact.
Re:So is it time for another encryption system? (Score:2)
The Kentucky Rifle might be better for sniping from the treeline. But the smooth bore Brown Bess is an arguably better weapon than the Kentucky Rifle for volley fire due to faster reloading and less fouling.
So yes, it could be said the government had a better rifle for what it wanted to do.
Re:So is it time for another encryption system? (Score:2)
No, its not really that circular a logic. Remember we are talking black powder era. If you do not use volley fire, the first shots will produce enough smoke to interfer with the later shooters. Hence the adoption of the volley.
That's why I'm hiding behind a tree with my rifle.
You mean that one tree with the pall of smoke around it.
Re:So is it time for another encryption system? (Score:2)
You are the second poster to thoroughly misunderstand the OP's point.
It isn't about algorithm backdoors, DES was long finished before Clipper was even a twinkle, much less a failed initiative.
You need to think along the lines of DVD6C - the guys who control the patents for DVD players. If you want to manufacture and sell a conforming DVD player, you must license DVD6C's patents and as part of that license you MUST implement al
Why should VOIP be any different? (Score:5, Insightful)
Big brother is already into my credit card records, phone call records, credit and purchase history and library records. Why would anyone think VOIP would get a break?
Punishing the Innocent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Punishing the Innocent (Score:2)
Nothing but force can change the sway of the government back into the favor of the people instead of just the favor of the governmentpeople.
'The American Dream' is nothing but a cunning bit of propaganda the government spreads. If you have 2.5 kids, a dog, a cat, and a house that will be paid off in just a few more decades..what incentive do you have to fight or risk all of that because Uncle Sam might be listening to your call
What next... a backdoor in Windows. MacOSX, Linux? (Score:2)
Re:What next... a backdoor in Windows. MacOSX, Lin (Score:2)
If it hasn't happened already, you can bet it will soon. Just let them find one "terra-ist" with an iPod using it to hide their activities, and you'll see some serious heavy hands coming down on the industry.
Encrypt Everything? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Encrypt Everything? (Score:2)
If I was just going to e-mail someone I might as well just type the message and encrypt it instead of going through the hassle of recording what I want to say and then attaching that to an encrypted e-mail. Sometimes you want/need real time interaction and if VoIP becomes the norm I don't want any backdoors and I want control of the encryption. Also, encrypted VoIP would probably just look like "normal" traffic as well, at least if it is done right.
It's
Re:Encrypt Everything? (Score:2)
SpeakFreely (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SpeakFreely (Score:2)
Should this come to pass... (Score:5, Funny)
the devil made me do it. (Score:2)
then they had me look at a old 1 and a $5 and a $20. sorry.
Phone should be an app, not a service (Score:5, Informative)
The reason our phones are vulnerable to these kinds of attacks, is that we view phone service as .. um .. well, I just used the word: service. You use a "service provider's" network. I'm not talking about your ISP.
But with IP, you don't need to use a "phone service provider" except to interface with POTS. Have your phone contact my jabber server to start a conversation, and we'll use PGP on top of that. Now there isn't any "provider" to regulate and force to implement MitM attacks. They would have no choice but to regulate the users themselves, and we've seen how great that works with the War on Drugs. I guess it'll be another excuse to throw people in jail, and another way to make good people live in fear of their government, but one thing you can be sure of: it won't work for anything else. It won't prevent the behavior that they're trying to suppress.
Death to "service providers." We just need open phone hardware (that we can install our own application on) and a network connection.
US Govt. is the LEAST abusive users of CALEA (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030710. html [pbs.org]
Warranted VoIP logging and CALEA (Score:2, Insightful)
Sad day? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Right to Remain Silent (Score:3, Insightful)
The people who have most interest in circumventing the Constition are inevitably the people who think they are the least affected by said circumventions, i.e. career Politicians and career powerful bureacrats (FBI's Hoover comes to mind). We prevented future Hoovers b
Re:Right to Remain Silent (Score:3, Insightful)
Your term limits are decent interventions, but of course they're obviously needed now that Republicans, not Democrats, have forced the issue. As it was Nixon's Republican Executive which forced the Hoover issue in the FBI, and how Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) is f
Re:Right to Remain Silent (Score:2)
Re:That's One Idea, Here's A Better One (Score:5, Insightful)
First, dumping Israel will not protect us from terrorists. You must remember that al-Qaeda attacked Saudi Arabia, even though Saudi Arabis is the guardian of the Islamic holy cities. But they weren't idealogically pure enough, they crossed one of al-Qaeda's lines, and they got hit anyway. So if we were to totally stop supporting Israel, would that buy us protection from terrorist attacks? No. There would be some other issue - we were still selling products to Israel, or buying from them, or something. Are you prepared to write a blank check of concessions to every set of idiots that are willing to use violence to accomplish their goals?
Second: Israeli terrorism??? Hello?
Imagine that the Mexicans, instead of just flooding across our borders in insane numbers, were firing homemade rockets into downtown San Diego and El Paso. Imagine that this had been going on for two years. And imagine that the people doing this (the Zapatistas, say) won the next Mexican presidential election. Now they're the Mexican government. Then they fire some more rockets. Since they're the government, that's now an act of war.
So we go after them. After all, enough is enough. And, though we try to avoid it, there are inevitably civilian casualties. Does that make us terrorists? Or are the terrorists the people who were firing rockets into our cities for two years, deliberately targeting civilians?
Third: Enabling Israel to keep going after the people who are targeting their civilians is a good thing. There cannot be peace while Hezbollah and Hamas continue firing missiles into Israel, and neither of them seem willing to stop, ever. So they have to be stopped. That means that Israel is doing the right thing. But sometimes doing the right thing - or helping someone else to do the right thing - upsets people who are doing the wrong thing. We should help them do the right thing anyway.
Re:That's One Idea, Here's A Better One (Score:4, Insightful)
The trouble is that Israel doesn't actually try to avoid civillian casualties. Observe their deliberate targeting of civillian infrastructure and housing districts (not to mention UN outposts). An even clearer example is their longstanding policy of collective punishment in Palestine. That can legitimately be labelled government-sponsored terrorism.
Re:That's One Idea, Here's A Better One (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? [alertnet.org]
Israel believes their enemy has taken base in civilian locations. Perhaps Israel should just toss in the towel? "We'd like to bomb our enemies but, crap, they're living in grandma's basement. Guess we concede." Instead, they seem to be making an effort to tell civilians to get the hell out of dodge because the bombs will soon be dropping.
Yeah, it sure sucks for the families in Lebanon who likely don't really have an
Re:That's One Idea, Here's A Better One (Score:3, Informative)
If this does not mitigate your feelings, then you're as blind as the Israeli consul general in New York who said last week that "most Lebanese appreciate what we are doing".
Re:That's One Idea, Here's A Better One (Score:2)
The main lesson from all this - getting back to topic - is that civilization's worth defending. And civilization isn't whatever crazy belief set some group of people manages to share among them. Civilization is specifically an allegiance to bedrock values of science, individual freedoms, environmental preservation, and a flourishing of aesthetics that we cannot succeed or survive in a
Re:That's One Idea, Here's A Better One (Score:2)
So what you are saying is that we can exact any old injustice on anyone at all, and as long as their not willing to conce
Re:That's it. (Score:2)