Higher Education Fears Wiretapping Law 243
alphadogg writes "Institutions of higher education are up in arms over an FCC ruling on wiretapping they say could cost them billions of dollars in upgrades, expose their networks to more attacks, and jeopardize rights to privacy and freedom of speech.
"
Why do colleges (Score:5, Insightful)
Could the answer be 'They have history departments'?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tags (Score:2)
(Article stuff)[Right under article, in small font]
[+] bigbrother, fcc, freespeech, security, usa (tagging beta)
Examples: security, usa
Higher Education Fears Wiretapping La
Take a peek for it
Re:Why do colleges (Score:2)
If it isn't sarcasm, what in the hell are you talking about mang?
Re:Why do colleges (Score:5, Interesting)
A parody of the current administration I can only assume...
That said, (some) colleges are actually becoming quite notorious for having plenty of "laws" on campus that abridge or ammend what many consider to be their inalienable freedom of speech. Sure, this goes back to the argument of Congress shall make no law, not "college campuses" or the like, but still...
Check out FIRE [thefire.org] for an all-you-can-eat look at how colleges are indeed becoming politically correct havens of modified free-speech rules, inequity in education based on race, class, and sex, and the like.
Re:Why do colleges (Score:2)
Yeah, recently, didn't an art student at some college paint some fairly unflattering pictures of muslims/terrorists and have his gallery which was scheduled to be displayed 'yanked' due to PC? I think I heard they relented and will let him display later, but, only because of free speech advocates protesting this censoring.
Freedome from 'hearing' something disagreeable is not in the Constitution....and it wou
Re:Why do colleges (Score:2)
Re:Why do colleges (Score:2)
Can't... Resist... Must.... Type... Like... This.. (Score:2)
If I had 'nuff mod points
If I could find a way
I'd mod up those words that you've posted
And you'd stay
If I had 'nuff mod points
I'd give them all to you
And you'd love me, love me, like you used to do
Huh? (Score:2)
Or were you just trying to be cute?
Re:Why do colleges (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't flame me: I'm just repeating what the really angry conservatives scream at me when I ask how one terrorist attack 5 years ago makes us more at risk now (and thus necessitate giving up fundamental freedoms we have never given up before) than during the Revolutionary War, Civil War, 1812, WWI, WWII, Cold War...
Re:Why do colleges (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Why do colleges (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have any idea what kinds of freedoms people actually gave up during previous wars?
Hint: we're not in a war. War requires a declaration, which we haven't done since 1941.
Re:Why do colleges (Score:3)
I think you'll need to find a different argument. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not defending the current administration's policies, but I just think that you should be careful drawing historical comparisons before you know where they're going. President Lincoln -- who history has treated quite favorably -- declared and imposed martial law, suspended habeas corpus, and arrested people that today would probably be termed "political dissidents," including a few members of Congress. (The anti-war Democrats known as the "Copperheads" were the common target.)
When the arrests and courts-martial were declared blatantly unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (under Taney), Lincoln simply ignored the ruling until the conclusion of the war. You can Google this, just type in "John Merryman" or check out Ex parte Merryman [civil-liberties.com] (the ruling that was ignored).
That's one of the more well-known and egregious violations, but there are others; the persecution of the Germans in World War I, the Japanese in World War II, and a host of other things, any of which can and were argued to be necessary at the time owing to extenuating circumstances.
So by drawing a historical parallel between 9/11 and any other "war period" in our history, you can quite easily play into the hands of a pro-oppression argument, because there is ample historical evidence for periods of relative oppression (or at least, of substantially reduced civil liberties) during conflicts, followed by a return to normalcy afterwards.
Re:I think you'll need to find a different argumen (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, there was gruesome live combat occuring on American soil between Americans. It's a little different when the main thing propelling the whole argument is just a spun up fear of "terrorism".
So by drawing a historical parallel between 9/11 and any other "war perio
Re:I think you'll need to find a different argumen (Score:4, Informative)
Clockwurk did a much better job of comparing the two than I could ever hope to do:
(Mod me underrated if you want to mod this post up; I don't want to karma whore off of someone else's work.)
Re:I think you'll need to find a different argumen (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you really think that
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Higher education vs. government decisions... I do wonder who's in the right.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Civil liberties? Pfft. (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Actually, it's for the terrorists children (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Civil liberties? Pfft. (Score:2)
Actually, it makes perfect sense. Universities are full of foreigners ;)
Re:Civil liberties? Pfft. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Civil liberties? Pfft. (Score:3, Funny)
So... we should end wommen's suffrage?
Re:Civil liberties? Pfft. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Civil liberties? Pfft. (Score:2)
After watching what the American public will put up with I am no longer convinced that all people love their freedom and privacy. There was not nearly the outrage over domestic spying that I thought there should be. And the fact that our government can grab anyone off the street and declare that person to be an enemy combatant without due process is not so alarming to the general public either. So where is this love
obviously... (Score:2)
Welcome to
Re:obviously... (Score:2)
Yeah I dunno how mod points are handed out, I've had 5 to hand out on one occasion the entire time I've been here, and my karma must be pretty good by now
The Ministry of Communication is duty-bound... (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, so it was only three weeks before 9/11. And it was some other country. But you have to give him credit for achieving his policy objective, not only in his own country, but in his opponent's country too.
Re:The Ministry of Communication is duty-bound... (Score:2)
If you haven't already, read the review of Bush by Sean Wilentz [rollingstone.com] in Rolling Stone. THEN, watch Stephen Colbert [youtube.com] at the White House correspondents dinner last night.
The tides are turning. It's too much. Too much bad for one group of people for us to put up with. Too many lies. Too much secrecy.
Concerns are interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would think that the universities would be worried more about the free speech implications rather than the cost... I don't think the cost issue will hold up in court that well - but free speech (hopefully would).
The only other thing is that the article mentions that a negative ruleing, could force even labtops on campus to be CALEA compliant. Since I'm a student at a university that requires students going into certain majors to have a labtop (to use and plug into the campus network) - I'm wondering if that means that we as students would have to modify our personal labtops (cause they interact with the campus network).
Sadly I bet the universities will compromise on this issue - rather than go to court.
Labtop? (Score:4, Funny)
Contraction of lap and belly (Score:2)
Re:Labtop? (Score:2)
Re:Labtop? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Labtop? (Score:2)
Re:Labtop? (Score:2)
Ross
Re:Concerns are interesting... (Score:2)
We'll you have to know the audiance you are arguing to. If there was a democratic administration, perhaps voicing concern over freedoms and liberty would be the main thrust of the agrument, however with a republican adminis
Re:Concerns are interesting... (Score:2)
Re:Concerns are interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
People, it seems, don't care about their freedom as much as they care about thier bank accounts. The threat of a possible Government operation taking place on campus doesn't scare too many people, but the threat of another $500 going towards the already high tuition costs does scare them.
Most people don't understand that they are losing their liberties, liberties protected by the Constitution. These people feel that the government is going after Terrorist and Bad People and would never infringe upon the rights on Ma and Pa America. They don't care wheter or not you can burn a flag or say Bush is a complete cunt. They don't care if Apu Nahasapeemapetilon gets shipped to some camp in Cuba and no one ever knows. They don't care because they don't think it matters to Ma and Pa America.
But,these people do care about that $500 that could go to something else, something more important than freedom, something special like thier SUVs gas bill. And the worst part..... these people Vote!
The Universities are smart in going about this as it costing too much. Seven Billion dollars (thats $7,000,000,000) is nothing to laugh at. They realize people will get pissed off at College costing more. The Universities realize they will get more people mad about this by playing the Money Card then they probably ever could by playing the Freedom Card.
I may be completely off base, but my years of doing the budget for my office tell me one thing... money talks.
Re:Concerns are interesting... (Score:2)
Re:Concerns are interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would you ask them for something they cannot provide? Why would you let them TRY when you know they will FAIL? That's the problem. Of course people care about their bank accounts. But the problem isn't caring about bank accounts, it's expecting the wrong things from gove
You can buy a lot of freedom for $500. (Score:2)
Want to travel out of state? Going to need money. Want to call your friends? Going to need money. Want to live indoors? Going to need money. Want to have a good lawyer? Going to need money.
For a lot of people, not having $500 makes a much more immediate and real impact on their practical freedom than the government snooping their IP traffic.
Freedom to not be forced to spend your money on stupid shit is no
Re:Concerns are interesting... (Score:2)
Money talks? It gets even better.
The upfront cost is $500 a head. But students do plenty of illegal shit online. Harassment, mp3 trading, warzing... How much does it cost a college to lose a student because he's gone to jail? At least a semester of lost tuition and / or the cost of over-enrolling students on the expectation that some will get pinched. A drop in the number of applications because the ratings have fallen, because the graduation rate is lower. And who knows what else!
Now, multiply that
Re: (Score:2)
Internet Traffic tickets (Score:2)
Kiss your free (as in speech) internet goodbye.
Re:Internet Traffic tickets (Score:2)
Of course, then they'll pass a law that it's illegal to say stuff that might be construed as a false positive.
Let's all remember that Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld are ALL citizens. We should sue them.
Looking on the bright side... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Looking on the bright side... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am at a university, and right now I am begining to think about the
Re:Looking on the bright side... (Score:4, Informative)
Giving a generous 4,000 deaths to terrorism over the last 6 years (generous because there are many plausible theories about 9/11, not all of which rely on Islamic terrorists), it works out to 667 per year.
According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths#Causes_of_de
If one wanted to save lives, then there are many, many better ways to go about it. Saving one death due to terrorism has a price tag around $1,000,000,000 and comes with massive losses of civil liberties. Preventing a death due to heart disease or lung cancer costs maybe a few thousand in anti-smoking programs and has very tiny (and entirely voluntary) effects on civil liberties.
Government waste alone probably kills more than 1 person per $1,000,000,000, via a reduced standard of living.
Re:Looking on the bright side... (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.st911.org/ [st911.org]
Check this link out, it has the support of many well respected professors, and helps explain the true story.
Re:Looking on the bright side... (Score:2)
Rubber Hose Method (Score:2)
It is often easier/faster to break a user than to break the encryption. How long can you stand being beaten with a rubber hose until you hand over the password? How long can you watch your significant other being beaten? How long could you stand your domain being hosted on an IIS server?
For me, well they can beat my wife a long time before I will
Lots of FUD in this article (Score:2, Informative)
My understanding is the most recent rulemaking by the FCC states that colleges and universities would only need to provide the "wiretap" capability for traffic going to and from the campus and the Internet. As such, a wholesale replacement of all routers and switches on campus would not be necessary; most likely some edge equipment and possibly some VLAN switching.
Of course, the cost complaint ignores the ongoing privacy versus security debate.
In any event, there is an excellent resource for higher educat
Summary should emphasize "could" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Summary should emphasize "could" (Score:2)
I wonder if the same situation applies to any large companies with large private networks connected to major internet backbones. Are there any that (almost) do without a seperate ISP?
Federal definition of "could" is "later" (Score:2)
Sooner or later, it will happen to them too because the TIA principle will be established. The novelty here is that this shit was not pushed through public universities first. Freedoms are usually taken from children first to condition them before they know better.
It's too bad the university administrations are not putting their weight behind CELA b
Re:Summary should emphasize "could" (Score:2)
Re:Summary should emphasize "could" (Score:3, Informative)
That was my reading, although I suppose there could be other interpretations.
Where I went to school last, Internet service was provided to the campus by commercia
Re:Summary should emphasize "could" (Score:3, Interesting)
I work @ a state college (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I work @ a state college (Score:3, Interesting)
When I was a school governor, and we were required by law to do something undesirable, we just sheduled the discussion to be the last item in the meeting. Then the meeting would close with that item being postponed for a future meeting, due to lack of time. This was perfectly legal, and could continue for ever.
Alternatively, vote for it to be implemented "just as soon as we have a budget allocation for it" - ie never. Political problems require political
RFC66666 (Score:2, Insightful)
Is your network Echelon-ready?
Costs? Nah (Score:2)
Why fear cost? (Score:2)
Or are they worried about the cost of limiting that access to just the government?
This is bad. (Score:2, Insightful)
What part of PBX don't they get? (Score:3, Interesting)
PBX means just that: Private Branch Exchange. PBX != "Telephone Company"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What part of PBX don't they get? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a good argument that the reason you give to not mess with law enforcement is actually a good reason TO challenge law enforcement.
Re:What part of PBX don't they get? (Score:2)
1) Preserving their own physical security and safety
2) Preserving their own economic security and job
3) Preserving other people's "freedoms"
There is a huge gap between 2 and 3. If you can even vaguely threaten their jobs, I have a feeling that most people will probably fall over themselves tryin
Of course you don't know other countries (Score:2, Insightful)
Freedom of Speech (Score:2)
I wish people would stop confusing (or associating) freedom of speech and privacy.
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
However, Freedom of Speech is not the real issue, as you so well pointed out. We are devling into the 4th Amendment protections of 'Unlawful Search and Siezure,' and the implied freedoms of Privacy that has been recognized by the US Supreme Court. That is the real issue. Stating that the issue is Freedom of Speech is blurring the issues. You could also argue that this issue is related to the Due Process protections -- the assumption that everyone is a potential terrorist/criminal and as such their communications should be available.
More interesting is that the report that was released on Saturday or Sunday stated that their have been 3,501 abuses of the Patriot Act -- and that was what was admitted.
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:2)
Bzzzt! Incorrect, sir. If you are afraid of what you are saying, then that is personal paranoia, nothing more.
"implied freedoms of Privacy"
There's a problem with implied. You get to read into the implication and others get to read into it. You and them may have diametrically opposing inferences.
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:2)
Now THAT'S Intrusive (Score:2)
So, to implement wiretapping usefully, modifications typically have to be made to each of the endpoint machines (key loggers, etc.). Either additional software, or hardware. Once the endpoint machine modification is in place, what is to prevent it from being used by another agency (not author
Civil rights website? (Score:2)
Re:Civil rights website? (Score:2)
New Zealand...France...Zimbabwe...PRC...Germany...USA .
Germany may seem out of place, but I was talking with a German about civil liberties/free speech/ID cards the other day and he felt they were a marvellous idea because the government was the most trustworthy organisation in the country. He isn't a stupid person, anywhere where non-stupid people think that the government is the most trustworthy organisation about and will trust them with anything is just ripe for a government to do a
Take the security concerns seriously (Score:5, Informative)
(infosec hat on)
There was a recent scandal in Greece about massive eavesdropping. Many government phone calls were getting involuntarily "conferenced" to multiple prepaid cellular phones. Nobody's caught the perpetrators.
This was done with the "lawful intercept" feature of the telco switching equipment. Depending on the nature of the phone calls it might have been a national security issue.
"Lawful intercept" is a huge security bypass. Bad guys will be highly motivated to exploit it. They won't have to breach physical security either, because CALEA (if memory serves) requires the ISP to offer law enforcemnt remote access.
The threat model also has to include unauthorized users at the law enforcement agency ("Hey, what's this sticky note on the monitor at the CALEA terminal?"). Next worry about the law enforcemnt officer with a personal agenda, e.g. a stalker. Then consider the amount of money in computer crime these days, and ask whether the CALEA operators will be the first incorrutible cops in history. Then reread _The Art of Deception_ and imagine what the next Kevin Mitnick could get the police to do.
That's off the top of my head. For a client I'd get really paranoid
Re:Take the security concerns seriously (Score:2)
Wow. Makes one wonder...
SB
stupid law (Score:2)
Pretty Typical Trend, Actually (Score:2)
1. Introduce sweeping, over-generalized assault on freedom from potential massive abuse of law enforcement power (but won't someone think of the child
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahhh... that's the great thing about the good ol' USA. We don't have to just leave if we don't like the laws. We can write our representatives, vote, support candidates we like, camp out in front of the president's house, yell, complain, march and protest. Hell, you don't even have to be a citizen of this country or here legally to protest - as we've seen today.
Maybe the people with the different opinions aren't the ones that should leave, maybe it's the people who want to opress free discussions of ideas, like YOU.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:2)
Besides, where would I go?
Re:So? (Score:2)
As for where to move to escape these people? Well on the surface many other countries look as bad (and may even have similar laws in place giving government the same ear-dropping-etc powers), but without the same level of paranoia America has, you'll find the desire for use of such powers usually less.
Re:So? (Score:2)
From atoms to complete cells to civilizations, they split (or die) once they reach a size that's impossible to keep order in. Wh
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
One of those laws is the Constitution. It's the root law of the US.
Some people seem not to like the Constitution. For example, they want to do mass searches without probable cause. One such person is rumored to have called it "just a God-damned piece of paper".
Are you, perhaps, suggesting that people who pass laws like USAPATRIOT, who imprison with charge or trial, who seize property without court authority and who torture their alleged enemies ought to leave the country? Wouldn't you prefer they stay so we can give them the fair trials they have denied to others [abc.net.au]?
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Such is the way of the facist. The foundation and ideals of his country run contrary to his own narrow and simplistic view of the world. He believes in absolutes, homogeneity, hierarchies, divine right, power and the right to use it.
The facist's deepest desire is to dominate those he feels are beneath him, without oversight or accountability. As he sees fit. The Constitution expressly forbids this to him, and thus is beneath contempt. It becomes, a document of the weak, a powerless writ of those beneath him, a meaningless formality, just a God-damned piece of paper.
That piece of paper is the only thing standing between you and the raw, unrestrained brutality of a brownshirted mob. I suggest you defend what's left of it before the pack brays with delight as they gleefully devour the carcass of your free society.
Re:Things will cease to happen (Score:2)
Hello! Anybody home, Mcfly? We're running under a deficit. That means we have negative money.
Re:Do it right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Do it right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Somebody sideswipes your car and breaks your leg. As you're lying there with a compound femur fracture, you scream at the other person "For the love of God, man, that door panel is going to cost, like, a thousand dollars to replace! Weren't you even thinking about how much it would cost?! I can't afford that! If you had just waited until I was standing outside the car!"
Not that a person would be comprehensible with a compound femur fracture, but you get the idea. When your first
Alternatively (Score:2)
The Gov't can mandate whatever the Fark they want, but without funding, it might as well have never been proposed.
Kinda like how some people are making noise about defunding the NSA. Without any money, the legality of the NSA's practices instantly becomes moot.
Re:Priorities? (Score:2)
Re:Well Screw This (obligitory) (Score:2)
You're going to make your own hookers?
Re:amazing (Score:2)