Comcast Charges $1000 Per Wiretap 178
It seems trashing the Fourth Amendment is very profitable:
For one company, FISA wiretaps carry a $1K pricetag
Comcast, which is among the nation's largest telecommunication companies, charges $1,000 to install a FISA wiretap and $750 for each additional month authorities want to keep an eye on suspects, according to the company's Handbook for Law Enforcement. Secrecy News obtained the document and published it Monday.
Wasn't this... (Score:2)
Re:Wasn't this... (Score:4, Informative)
One week ago (Score:2)
Yup ... just one week ago [slashdot.org]. It was easily found with just "comcast [slashdot.org]" in the search page.
Maybe they meant to post THIS (Score:3, Interesting)
illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, but the presumption is that because a warrant is only issued by a judge "upon probable cause", a search based on that warrant is not unreasonable, because it is "supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized", and there are penalties for perjury.
There is also nothing in the Fourth Amendment that requires that you be informed of a warrant issued against you before it is carried out (in fact, if you were notified of a wiretap warrant, the wiretap would be completely useless, regardless of whether the court that issued it was a "secret court" or not).
Finally, what does the "right to a fair trial by jury of your peers" have to do with warrants and wiretaps? Warrants and wiretaps are used prior to the trial to gather evidence. The trial is when it is presented to the judge and jury. In fact, the FISA court does not hear criminal cases. It only handles matters like issuing warrants and reviewing of classified information.
So, where is any of that a violation of the Constitution?
Re:illegal? (Score:5, Funny)
I read smatterings of logic and intelligence in your post.
This is slashdot.
We will have none of that here.
Now be off with you.
-john
Re: (Score:2)
The real reason for oversight is to place limits upon individuals who get carried away with the power given them and when that power is abused that a warrant be issued for their arrest and prosecution. By avoiding oversight the
Silly man, the 4th amendment is not the baseline (Score:2)
Re:Silly man, the 4th amendment is not the baselin (Score:4, Informative)
There is no requirement that the warrant be public, nor are there strictly any constitutional requirements on who has to issue the warrant (although traditionally that is done by either a judge or a justice of the peace).
Moreover, the power to pass FISA is covered in the Constitution, Article III Section 1: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Because the FISA court doesn't try either criminal or civil cases (it is limited to issuing warrants and reviewing classified materials, not conducting trials), there is no need to involve a jury, and no need to publicize any aspects of its actions.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it is unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. But because the proceedings of this secret court are closed, the public can't really know whether a particular warrant was, in fact, issued "upon probable cause," unlike in an ordinary court. There's no oversight, so how would anyone involved be prosecuted for perjury?
Once again, you're looking at the wrong end of the process. When a warrant is issued by a secret court, you don't go to jail. You go to jail when a jury of your peers hears the case, and your defense attorney is more than welcome to ask what probable cause lead to the evidence gathered against you.
Oversight of FISA itself is performed by the U.S. Congress. If that's not sufficient oversight for you, then I'd suggest you come up with a way that the NSA and FBI can reasonably perform surveillance on suspecte
Re: (Score:3)
Moreover, where are courts required to publish a public record of all warrants issued, especially for wiretaps? Last i checked, the entire point ofa wiretap is that the person being tapped doesn't know about it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between keeping a wiretap secret during an investigation and keeping it secret forever. Lack of transparency encourages abuse and replaces respect for the government with fear and mistrust.
Re: (Score:2)
"We believe in respecting human rights"
"But you torture people! Simulated drowning isn't humane"
"The entire point of torture is not to be humane!"
See? Doesn't work. If we can't find a way to have our methods of law enforcement compatible with human interests and needs to avoid corruption, then maybe we need to stop using or modify those methods.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
To wit, do you really know enough about police activity to make a claim about police activity? (I.e., were you privy to the behind the scenes work or were you just basing this all on what you saw outside your window?)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, it isn't)
. Tell that to the countless pedophiles that get put away each year due to tipsters leading to search warrents.
Trust me. The police aren't going to be able to get a warrant based on unsworn statements given by a handful of nosy neighbors unless they already have some corroborating evidence.
This statement in a thread about illegal wiretapping. lol. Ironic, since all it takes is 1 judge to produce a warrent. If the cop asking for the warrent is "friends" with the judge its a lot easier and takes a lot less, and happens a lot more than you think.
Do you have any friends that are cops? Ever been pulled over by him while you were drunk and speeding? I don't have any friends that are c
Re: (Score:2)
You're a credit to servicemen and women everywhere.
Re:Let's Look at the Fourth Amendment! (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that Comcast also makes money off of these wiretaps is outrageous. That's incentive for them to keep violating the Fourth Amendment whenever asked by the government, regardless of legal grounds to do so.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They're certainly not a shining example of democratic ideals, but they are a damn sight better than the powers arrogated by this administration.
Oh wait, I forgot: we're at war. Forever.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of anyone's opinion of FISA, it is still vastly superior to warrentless searches b
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal might? That sounds scary.
'Illegal' and 'unconstitutional' are not 100% interchangable, per se. That's the only point I was making. Just as civil and criminal violations are not always the same, but *can* be the same act under some circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
See, the secret illegal wiretaps don't even have to incur that FISA-approved tap charge. They just say "do it, or else" to the telco, and I bet the telco doesn't get to add a line item on the accounting ledger.
Re: (Score:2)
Without pay, I would bet the lag time would be long.. As a private company with a task to perform, the unpaid task would be bottom priority like most of their coustomer service requests.
There's no whore like an old whore ... (Score:3, Insightful)
> "Without pay, I would bet the lag time would be long.. As a private company with a task to perform, the unpaid task would be bottom priority like most of their coustomer service requests."
Always follow the money ...
Or in this case, "there's no whore like an old whore ..." (f*cking your customers for $1k + $750/m, like Comcast customers aren't already screwed enough ...)
An hour later the "illegal" is removed (Score:2)
It is now 9:35am and the title of the write-up has already been revised — without even the customary note to the effect — but the write-up itself still laments the "thrashing of the Fourth Amendment".
Apparently, there is nothing the Law Enforcement part of the government can do, that would be "legal" in the predominant opinion here.
All things considered, that's, probably, a good thing — even if incorrect or exaggerated...
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of us on the left would have been satisfied with the first sentence, it stands up on its own. Not everyone on the right is so crazy about what we're doing w/r/t foreign policy; in other words, lots of them aren't blindingly stupid, just have different views.
Escalating Prices (Score:5, Funny)
When confronted by the govt, they let them know that secrecy, much like their internet connection uptime, is in no way guaranteed under the current terms.
For guaranteed privacy, it is $5,000.00 per month. However, if they only listen on nights and weekends, the fee is slightly reduced.
Talk about creating shareholder value!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
According to customers, there is too much uncertainty involved with the current conditions. "I can't invest two grand a month without any profit gu
So Much For Free.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Download and read the book. This applies to just the VOIP that Comcast provides in it's triple play package. If you use a third party VOIP solution, it is outside the scope of the offer. If you think you are protected by using a cell phone...
It is time to look at what the government contractors are selling to your government.
http://www.antennasystems.com/trapandtrace.html [antennasystems.com]
This device works w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cell phone communications are a standard protocol. If you can crack one cell phone, you can crack them all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, hell, if it's just a matter of cash... (Score:3, Funny)
I'm more impressed with Qwest in this case (Score:4, Interesting)
...because they resisted the NSA [wired.com].
irony (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He pays for his own incarceration, too. Perhaps you'd like this essay [gutenberg.org] by Henry David Thoreau...
You cant put a price... (Score:4, Funny)
Article title is 100% WRONG! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FISA Wiretaps are *not* illegal. (Score:5, Informative)
Now, if you want to debate the Constitutionality of a FISA wiretap, that is a valid discussion, but the story does not even contain the word illegal anywhere. Read your own frakking article, and try to keep your story truthful.
Which is it? (Score:2)
Troll headlines (Score:2)
Pinto? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Pinto? (Score:5, Funny)
BUSINESS WOMAN: Are there a lot of these kinds of accident?
JACK: You wouldn't believe.
Dear shadow government... (Score:5, Funny)
(Now, if the monitoring program is secret, what can the IRS do if I don't report that income?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Total Ultimate Convergence Package
- full phone taps with up to 2 additional lines
- high speed, internet monitoring
- unlimited logging of long distance calls anywhere in North America
- up to 1000 minutes of long distance call logging outside of North America*
- cell phone tracking for up to 200 minutes per month**
- digital and analog television viewing tracking with set-top box on over 200 channels
Minimum 1 year subscription.
* see serv
Maybe not so profitable (Score:4, Funny)
Many of you seem to be missing the point (Score:2)
Isn't the bigger problem the fact that this happens apparently so often that Comcast has a pricing structure for it? I mean, if it happened irregularly, Comcast would probably eat the cost as part of being a good citizen.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's common practice for organizations to estimat
Doesn't surprise me really (Score:2)
Profit! (Score:4, Funny)
1. Buy a white utility van. Buy a blue -not black- uniform so no one can see you under the streetlight. Your company name should have pizza or florist in it.
2. Climb utility pole. Connect phone line to your headphones. Its not more technical than this. Now you hear all the phone conversations.
3. ????
4. Profit!!!
Scary accounting (Score:5, Interesting)
"I was actually surprised that this was such a routine transaction that it would have a set fee," said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy.
Two things that I find strange. First, take this out of the context of FISA. If a state prosecutor, say, subpoenas records from a private business, do they routinely pay said business for the processing? Generally speaking, it seems that when a court orders something, you don't get paid for the time or effort. Even if you hire a lawyer to handle the subpoena process you don't get reimbursed for that. Maybe someone with some inside knowledge can fill me in here, but wouldn't you have to file a petition to have any processing costs refunded?
Second thing that's a little quirky, why is there a maintenance fee? Why is there an initial cost? I wouldn't think that it's Comcast's own techs doing the surveillance. After all, when phone lines are tapped Verizon guys don't do the tapping. Is it to compensate for lost bandwidth? Doesn't seem likely. Again, if someone knows better, please fill me in, but it seems a bit strange that Comcast is able to charge money to allow the government to perform court-ordered surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, it's hush money.
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine they do (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean consider another case: Suppose the cops suspe
I'm upset about FISA too (Score:2)
End the Stealth Government [nationalreview.com]
Well thats ..... (Score:2, Funny)
There a discount package on illegal wire tapping if you sign up for the Big Brother Deluxe Program
Probably the highest paid law enforcement agency (Score:2, Funny)
Do I have a deal for them.... (Score:2)
Hey, Comcast, here's the deal. You give me the highest tier of Triple Play and all the premium channels for free, and I'll keep sprinkling "Osama Bin Laden", "Echelon", "terrorism", and other keywords into my Internet usage to keep the Feds interested. I won't even ask for a cut of what's left of the $750.
I mean seriously, if the Feds are going to listen anyway <cough>AT&T</cough> I might as well get something out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the government would be happy to foot the bill if you waive all your constitutional rights...
You're GOT to be kidding.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if I had bad intent, I'd possibly "clean up my act" and provide my correspondence to the government for the low price of $10k per month.
Think of it as insurance, Mr. G-man. For one low price you don't have to worry about me committing any crimes or even talking about committing crimes, and
Quite reasonable; wiretapping harder than it looks (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Quite reasonable; wiretapping harder than it lo (Score:2)
Cut out the middleman! (Score:2)
fee (Score:3, Informative)
Now, this is ofcourse separate from the issue of the fact if these types of wiretaps should be allowed in the first place. In many cases that battle has already been fought, and lost. Expect big brother to watch, and expand its possibilities significantly. In europe, they're already talking about legal datamining in all the combined government and private sector databases,
make your vote count,
Cor
What a wonderful idea! (Score:2)
Maybe they can sell a collection of dupes and over-hyped stories on eBay...
What will the market bear? (Score:2)
Paranoid Bullshit (Score:2)
Gosh, do you think there might actually be some CRIME going on in US cities? Of course not, since Bush took office all crime is now centralized in the White House, right? Do you actually believe that there is so little crime going on that th
Interesting good news (Score:2)
If Comcast is able to charge for this, then it means that Comcast knows when it's happening. Maybe their help is even needed, to implement the tap.
That means the process has a step where a non-government party can say, "Let me see the court order." That doesn't necessarily mean they're doing that, but at least it's a potential check against illegal stuff.
One of my fears is that LE can do this stuff without anyone ever knowing they did it, whether they have a warrant or not. Fish away, and then, in the
How many taps? (Score:2)
Re:Well, hrm. (Score:5, Informative)
FISA has been around since 1978 [wikipedia.org]. How long have you been lamenting the descent?
Re:Well, hrm. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but you get to pay for the database they keep on your driving record and real time plate look-ups. (auto registration fees)
Re:Well, hrm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Believe it or not, Comcast charging the government is in your best interest. This puts a price tag on frivolous subpoenas which discourages the government from issuing broad subpoenas. This also discourages subpoenas for multiple wiretaps to be maintained indefinitely (even law enforcement must work within a budget).
An ISP with which I am familiar often provides law enforcement with a quote of the cost to fullfill subpoenas they felt were too broad or would require a significant amount of man hours (Uhmm, CPU time) to produce the requested information. Almost invariably this resulted in law enforcement reducing the scope of the subpoena in question (I.E. information about less individuals was disclosed) or they completely rescinded the subpoena.
So whether you agree that Comcast should be able to make a small profit on wiretaps, they are providing an additional layer of checks and balances to our government.
Additionally, why should the Comcast subscribers foot the bill for a public service (Note that I am not a Comcast subscriber).
Checks and Balances: Pun intended? (Score:2)
So whether you agree that Comcast should be able to make a small profit on wiretaps, they are providing an additional layer of checks and balances to our government.
No. The government provides the checks, which add to Comcast's balances (and hence balance sheet). Until the NSA sends in the hammer squads ;-)
Honestly, I agree with the practice of charging the government for these sorts of things though. It is better that they charge law enforcement than that they pass the cost on to the customers.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm kind of comforted knowing that Comcast uses the same "gouging for a service that costs them almost nothing" tactic against people who want to spy on me, and that they don't just reserve that for their official customers
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If I get pulled over by an officer for speeding, can I send his department a bill for the time of mine he used up while writing me a ticket?
Your example isn't even the same. Are you providing that cop a service? No. You were caught doing something wrong and were then pulled over. Only good criminals (pun intended) get paid for doing illegal things. Now say you owned a computer diagnostic shop, and an FBI agent came to you asking for you to check thru a computer for anything suspicious (this is hypothetical as the FBI doesn't need your help), then you could charge for your service's. The FBI would of course get an order for you to do it, but i
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, I really hate Comcast even more now. They're allowed to charge for this? What the hell *is* that?
Why? I think this is great. It's a lot harder to institute hundreds of random wiretaps on probably harmless individuals, if you have to pay good money for each one of them. I say, make it law. A wiretap of any kind costs the DA's office $1000 per month.
Losing Customers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Currently, they have, essentially, a monopoly in most areas. In my neighborhood, DSL only became available recently and really only through SBC (hiding behind the AT&T name). The "service" is an 1/8th of the speed for barely any less monthly rate.
Believe me, if there
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting comment. In most "markets", Comcast has the best connection, and it is DSL that sucks eggs. So if Comacst is "ComCrap", what are the rest?
All this hand wringing and bile spitting at Comcast is all well and good, but the fact is that here in the technologically advaced USA, exactly 100% of the alternatives suck as well.
Of course in Europe and Japan (and in Korea for old people), Iterweb in lightening fast.
Re: (Score:2)
The key term here is unregulated.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on what you mean by switch, unless you go with virgin media and live in a cabled area your traffic will all be going through a BT openreach copper pair to your house. Also until recently almost all DSL was provided through BTs DSL backend network (this has now started to change with some of the bigger providers colocating thier own equipment in BT exchanges) which has a fee structure that made offering true u
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have to hope that the costs of losing customers would cause a greater net loss to the companies than they could obtain in profits.
The fact that Comcast makes it more difficult for the government to tap your internet connection pisses you off? What bizarro world are you in?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
rj
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe we should cutout the middleman. Comcast can discount their fees, and then the government can pay us to spy on ourselves.
-------
Very Well. I'll just have my people contact each other then. Have to keep them busy. --Fletch
Re:Why should they do it for free? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ordinary citizens don't get compensated for their trouble in complying with a court order. Maybe they ought to be, but they aren't. The companies are getting special treatment here.
Now if the government doesn't have to compensate somebody, should we be concerned if (apparently) out of the goodness of their heart they find the money to do so? I'd say we should at least be concerned. An internal FBI audit of only 10% of the agency's uses of its "National Security Letter" powers over the course of several years found literally thousands of instances where telecomm companies improperly furnished the agency with personal information about their subscribers. In other words the companies and feds routinely cooperate in ways that are designed to evade legal scrutiny, although we can choose to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the motivation was convenience rather than outright lawbreaking.
Add the fact that the telcos were paid for this and you have a cozy -- and improper -- special arrangement the telecomm companies have with the Feds. If you step back and squint, it's hard to distinguish it from a system in which the secret police use a combination of threats and bribes to set set citizens spying upon each other. That's bad. It should be incontestable that when your bank or your phone company opens up your private life to the police, it is based on probable cause and validated by an independent and competent legal authority.
Contrary to common belief, there is no fourth amendment protection for personal information that is held by third parties, unless those parties have a special fiduciary relationship to you. This means you have no constitutional protection at all for any information you must divulge to a third party in order to communicate. We ought to, but we don't. It just wasn't part of the world the framers lived in. All we have between us and intolerable levels of government intrusion into our private affairs is a thin veil of statutory law which is supposed to cover over the holes in the Bill of Rights.
People probably should be compensated for cooperating with federal agents in their investigations; but until the feds can be constrained to act within the law, it's a good thing that cooperatng with them is a nuisance. I don't have a problem with paid snitches in general, but when organizations to whom we must entrust personal information on a large scale become paid snitches, we don't have any privacy safety net. The companies aren't going to complain because they're getting paid; the feds aren't going to complain because doing so admits they were breaking the law. And you aren't going to complain because you won't know until it is too late.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Why? The FBI now issues 30,000 National Security Letters per year. We obviously don't know who they are issued about, but it is not out of the question for a large Internet vendor to handle hundreds, or even thousands of letters.
Secondly, calling what they'd need to put in place "wiretapping infrastructure" is an exaggeration. Everything they need is already in place for normal network operation and management: mail and proxy logs, traffic analy