Court Backs Broadband Wiretap Access 95
bitkid writes "Reuters reports that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a petition aimed at overturning a FCC decision requiring broadband providers and others that offer Internet telephone service to comply with wiretap laws. According to the court, private networks would not be subject to the wiretap requirements. Just the same, networks connected with a public network would have to comply with the law." From the article: "The court concluded that the FCC requirement was a 'reasonable policy choice' even though information services are exempted from the government's wiretapping authority."
Join Tor Today!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Join Tor Today!!! (Score:1)
Re:Join Tor Today!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nahh they'll just throw you in jail on suspicion of being a terrorist, and a judge will claim contempt until you give them the encryption keys.
Re:Join Tor Today!!! (Score:2)
Exactly.. their (lame) point: "If you have nothing to hide, then why browse anonymously?
Re:Join Tor Today!!! (Score:3, Informative)
>
> Nahh they'll just throw you in jail on suspicion of being a terrorist, and a judge will claim contempt until you give them the encryption keys.
"Settle down, you two. This isn't 'either/or' thing!"
- Your Government
Re:Plead the 5th or ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL but I've been told by one that it is often to your benefit in certain situations to plead the 5th, refuse to testify, or if they won't allow for that claim ignorance that you have fogotten even though you will end up with some type of punishment or contempt in court.
But only if the punishment of what the crime is if it outweighs the charge of contempt.
The truth of the conversation was whether or not it was ok to refuse to take a breathalyzer test. If you refuse to take it, you can get your license supsended up to 12 months, but if you take it and were convicted of drunk driving you could face jail time plus 5 years suspension...
Now don't everyone go refusing breath tests now because these laws vary state to state, but the lawyer also told me without hard evidence it is easier to me off (errr don't ask) with a judge or jury because beyond reasonable doubt means there is real evidence that you commited a crime... Not hearsay that since you refused the test that you must be drunk.
However... Like I said before talk to your lawyer if you really want to know about the rules of this in your state (some states have refusal means a lot more)
So to apply to this situation and the moral of this situation... If you ever find yourself in a room full of FBI agents demanding your encryption keys... Explain to them it is your constitutional right (the 5th) to remain silent and you wish to speak to your lawyer so he can advise you how to proceed.
If a judge is ordering your encryption keys to be released, then have a frank discussion with your lawyer over whether or not the information that is contained on those drives will get you more jailtime if convicted than jailtime for refusing to comply.
Although... If you find yourself strapped on a table with a room full of NSA or CIA agenents with one of them weilding a cattle prod and other asking for those keys in a stern german accent... Well... Best of luck then.
Re:Plead the 5th or ignorance (Score:2)
Yep! Mod parent up! While IANAL, I do know you do have a Constitutional right to not incriminate yourself. They can't make you do anything.
The technique described above is used everyday in court.
This is exactly what happened to the journ
Re:Plead the 5th or ignorance (Score:2)
I wouldn't bet on that.
Double Jeopardy means you can't be punished twice for the same offense. It does not give you a license to repeat the offense by continuing to refuse a judge's lawful order.
"Get Out Of Jail Free" cards aren't often to be found in real life.
Re:Plead the 5th or ignorance (Score:2)
Well... That's what truecrypt is for.
Re:Plead the 5th or ignorance (Score:1)
"Well... That's what truecrypt is for."
Um... someone ought to be reminded to never, ever mention Truecrypt in this context again (i.e., imprisonment and other sundry legal sanctions), unless one wants to cue another endless onslaught of:
A fake 'I've been caught' decrypt key (Score:4, Insightful)
Add features to make it indistinguishable(can this be done??) from the regular decryption, and I think what you end up with is actual privacy. Although with one very upset government on our hands, but that's another day.
IMHO the government has severely shot itself, and by extension, us in the footal region by overreaching and prompting this flavour of technical reaction. This is an irreversible response...when lowly citizens taste their first control over their personal data, there's no reason, from their perspective to go back. Is there?
"Well since I know I'm doing nothing wrong, there's no reason for my info to be examined. Since it's now my choice, I'll keep encypting"
See, now the argument goes both ways.
Re:A fake 'I've been caught' decrypt key (Score:4, Informative)
While I suppose it is possible to use a crypto PROGRAM that spews out innocuous text in response to your fake key, the government investigators will most certainly be decrypting the cyphertext with their own application. The crypto algorithms just perform a series of mathematical operations on either a block of data or a stream of data. There is no known way to make one instance of cyphertext decrypt into two different sensible plaintext outputs depending on which of two keys are used. I suppose someone could design an algorithm to do this, but it sure as hell won't be easy.
No existing crypto algorithm in wide use has the ability to do what you describe (not Rijndael, not DES, nothing). Using your fake key on the real cyphertext will return a bunch of gibberish, which will make it very obvious that you gave them a fake key.
You might want to look into something else. There is a related field, stenography, which deals with hiding the existence of your data. Combining good encryption with good stenography can make it very difficult to discover you data, as an attacker would have to find it first, then attempt to decrypt it. Handing over your crypto keys doesn't do anyone any good if they cannot find coherent cyphertext to decrypt.
Re:A fake 'I've been caught' decrypt key (Score:1)
This seems very po
Re:Join Tor Today!!! (Score:2, Informative)
traffic is encrypted out of your box, so while the ISP will know who you're talking to (your entry node), they won't know *what* you're talking about, or what the final destination of the traffic is.
Re:Join Tor Today!!! (Score:1)
Re:Join Tor Today!!! (Score:1)
It's a lot easier to require encrypted communication from the website/service you're accessing. Market forces. But it will not happen until the people at MySpace can understand the need for this, and that won't be soon.
Re:Join Tor Today!!! (Score:2, Informative)
Take the net from them before they take it from you.
One word... (Score:1)
Encryption (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Encryption (Score:4, Insightful)
To spy on regular citizens. Real terrorists and criminals will use encryption, but the average person will not.
Re:Encryption (Score:4, Insightful)
Therefore using encryption will be probable cause. Have nice day.
KFG
Re:Encryption (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Encryption (Score:2)
Of course, there's a reason we have Guantanamo Bay. I'd imagine most powerful countries have concentration camps as well, or some equivalent convenient holding area for political prisoners.
Re:Encryption (Score:2)
Real terrorists and criminals will use encryption, but the average person will not.
Where does this idea come from that all criminals and terrorists are master spies who never make stupid mistakes?
Generally speaking, criminals and terrorists are that way BECAUSE they're stupid (with various exceptions, of course).
Re:Encryption (Score:3, Interesting)
Even then, you might well be surprised at how many people just use Vonage to talk about committing a crime, just like they use normal phones today.
The smart ones will encrypt, of course. They may even use good encryption. But scrambled data i
Re:Encryption (Score:2)
The hardest part with encryption is generating the key to encrypt the rest of the data with, not the encrypting itself. Given that, you can pre-generate the keys in the background, only activating them when it's time.
Re:Encryption (Score:1, Interesting)
Bullshit. AES is fast enough to be done in a few milliseconds for the block sizes that VoIP needs. The main latency is still from you to your ISP.
And if anyone had broken AES, you'd surely know about it.
Re:Encryption (Score:2)
Yes, I'm sure you're right. After all, who would have a vested interest in not releasing that fact?
Re:Encryption (Score:2)
Re:Encryption (Score:1)
Well, not ecxaaaaaaactly. It'll just be defined as Obstruction of Justice.
KFG
Re:Encryption (Score:2)
Re:Encryption (Score:2)
Re:Encryption (Score:1, Offtopic)
Why not, its already illegal [gnu-designs.com] to withold your encryption keys in the UK, the US is soon to follow.
Re:Encryption (Score:1)
Well, the UK does have the drawback of having no formal constitution to which detainees could appeal (as they can try to with the 5th amendment to the US constitution).
Nevertheless, I appreciate your point, especially when "national security" so easily trumps constitutional rights in the US already.
In other news, written constitutions worldwide are devaluing faster than Germany
Re:Encryption (Score:2)
Encryption has its uses, sure, but it isn't easy. How do you plan to distribute keys, for instance? How do you keep people following reliable security protocols and avoid social engineering attacks? It's
All that needs to be said... (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone is overstepping their bounds, and needs to get slapped.
Re:All that needs to be said... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:All that needs to be said... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, accepting those arguments rather destroys the idea of thinking of the courts as either the guardians of justice or the guardians or our rights, or anything else that is traditionally used to justify their existence. It instead turns them into the guardians of the status quo, provided it's supported by those in power. (I.e., not EVEN just the guardians of the status quo, but only a restricted subset of that which doesn't much need guarding.)
But he quoted various laws (that I never agreed to or authorized any of my "representatives" to agree do [Here representatives refers to "representational democracy" and refers to not only members of the House, but also to Senators and elected members of both the judiciary and the executive branch]). There is a totally insane number of laws, so I accept that he quoted the laws accurately. That has nothing to do with justice, but only with legalism.
If I accept that he ruled as the laws and procedures require, then I am simultaneously accepting that the court system is intrinsically void of justice. That though justice may occasionally be found there, it is purely by happenstance. His ruling made NO appeal to justice. ALL that was mentioned was laws and precedents. Now there are enough varied precedents that generally lawyers on both sides of any case can quote precedents to support their point of view, so any appeal to precedent without a simultaneous demonstration of how this precedent yield justice in this situation is immediately suspect. When the decision itself appears to be without justice, then it is imperative that the court demonstrate how it actually *is* just. I did not find that in the file.
Obviously, IANAL. I *am* a citizen. And decisions like this one have left me two steps short of voting the straight anarchist ticket. (A useless gesture, admittedly, and that's good, since any avowed anarchist who is a party member is an obvious hipocrite...well, unless they are syndicalist or some such. They make me want to agree with the Nihilists, but I remember how that led to Stalin.)
Given judgements like this, I can understand why the feds are so anxious to render jury trials impotent. Corrupt to the core.
Re:All that needs to be said... (Score:2)
Don't worry, I'm sure their wrists will be very sore when this is all over.
Re:All that needs to be said... (Score:1)
Re:All that needs to be said... (Score:2)
~X~
Networks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Networks (Score:1)
KFG
Re:Networks (Score:1)
I'm fine with this... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'm fine with this... (Score:2)
Hold on, I'll be right back, there's somebody at the door.
Is it just me... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Is it just me... (Score:3, Insightful)
So at this point, you have basically given up. What ever happened to the America I used to know, which questioned and challenged every thing and fought for its rights? I sincerely do hope you are not in your 20s or younger. Because if you are, God really save America!
Re:Is it just me... (Score:2)
What makes you think they will let you?
By then it will be too late...
Re:Is it just me... (Score:2)
I can't be sure, but there is a good chance the public education system had something to do with it...
Re:Is it just me... (Score:1)
It got overrun with Idiot's, Retard's, Corupt politicians and Buisnessmen as well as Corperations and Lobbyists, Not to mention Copyright abusers and patent graber's and Law's giving so much power to the Richest most corupt of the aformentioned.
Which hasn't been helped by thoughs of the rest who should know better and be very alarmed to the point of rebel
e are going to hell in a handbasket (Score:3, Funny)
Congress(House) votes down Net neutrality in the name of better service to consumers (fucking corporate profit!!!!!!) and more censorship than China I'll bet....
Republicans are facists
Democrats are Socialists.
Liberatarians(sp?) are nutbags...
Green Party is for saving pigeons...
Damn isn't there a party left for the common man......
The only people who have it good in this country or lying politicians, corporate whores, scumbag lawyers, and slimy lobbyists...
Re:e are going to hell in a handbasket (Score:1)
Re:e are going to hell in a handbasket (Score:1)
Keg.
KFG
Re:e are going to hell in a handbasket (Score:2)
While I will agree with most recent presidents, I think the alien and sedition acts enacted by our second president (and first vice-president) still trumps this. But he seems to be working on it (the Alien Enemies Act and Alien Friends Act seem to be revived, just using "enemy combatant" instead of alien).
Re:e are going to hell in a handbasket (Score:1)
V for Vendetta (Score:2)
Re:e are going to hell in a handbasket (Score:2)
But the moderate libertarians (most libertarians) are for increasing personal liberties, personal responsibility, and less intrusive, smaller government.
I would think that a majority of us on here can appreciate those ideals.
~X~
Re:e are going to hell in a handbasket (Score:1)
Yes, it's called the Koncern for Egalitarian Governance party, better known by it's acronym:
K.E.G.
We belive in free, rambling speech; the right to bear forearms; freedom from "staying the night"; freedom to search any unreasonably gifted females; the right to refuse to answer the ociffer no mater how CUTE she is; the right to the walk of shame from your roomates; freedom to take your ex-b1tch before Judge Joe Brown; and freedom from the local d
Libertarians.... (Score:2)
You should really study it a bit more:
http://cato.org/about/about.html [cato.org]
http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml [lp.org]
http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/categories_list
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wiretapping is actually a legitimate power (Score:5, Insightful)
And the problem with "a fascist ass like Bush" is that any power granted to any level of government will be abused. No matter how noble the present office holder is, there will be a fascist little twit there at some point.
That is why granting power to government doesn't work. It has never worked. Leviathan always grows, always gains more power to itself. Any "emergency" power today will be tomorrows "Legitimate Power". That's why the American Constitution has no provision for suspension of said Constitution. If it did, an "emergency" would be quickly manufactured and those Constitutional limitations on government power forsaken.
There are those who see "illegal combatant" as just another excuse for an abuse of power they want to do anyway.
Bob-
It was, but I don't think it is anymore (Score:2)
Nowadays and increasingly, we are going to be always online, always interconnected, sending and recieving, and faced with interception that could theoretically be continuous - a panopticon. Or, we could decide that the government can no longer own that power, and snatch it back from them.
I'd like to see the USA introduce a new co
How is this any different... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is scary, in big ways (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm waiting for this issue to get tested in the court system..... I think its a constitutionally granted rights issue, not a simple matter of being able to 'hunt for terrists' at will. The rights of law abiding free men and women, necessarily uphold the rights of criminals to the same treatment. Changing that status quo means treating the law abiding people as criminals, and that is wrong.
The scariest part is that while a judge can say one way or the other, there is currently no manner for the people, the courts, or anyone else to manage how the government does such things. By that, I mean that there is no technically savvy oversight of such activities... sort of the ignorant being in charge of a group of hackers with malice in mind. We know where that will lead....
nothing to see here, move along (Score:2)
Re:Feel Safer? (Score:2)
60% Flamebait
40% Insightful
TrollMods feel safer when they suppress the truth about their corporate idols.
Public ? (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been paying my membership fees to access my service providers private networks for years now.
Go to a library. (Score:2)
Re:Public ? (Score:1)
End user encryption? (Score:1)