VOIP Tappings Under Scrutiny

dynooomite writes "CNN.com is reporting that Privacy groups have asked an appellate court to overturn an FCC rule that allows for phone-taps on VOIP calls. The privacy groups made their case saying taps would seriously hinder innovation on the web."

Re:Encryption?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

it already does it Britain (not to the FCC, obviously)

The facts here are simple

[Work Account]

To "sit on a wire" anywhere you should need a probable cause and a warrant.

Anyone without this is simply hacking, which is illegal.

Re:Encryption?

[MaceyHW]

The rule applies to VoIP providers such as Vonage that use a central telephone company to complete Internet calls. It also applies to cable and phone companies that provide broadband services. The companies must comply by May 2007.

Apparently not. I think the really interesting issue there is would be third party companies that were to provide certificate services for ad hoc encryption be subject to the requirement

Innovation?

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

What does innovation have to do with it? Aren't our constitutional rights more important than if companies can make money off something?

Re:Taps on VOIP?

[bypedd]

"The whole process of innovation on the Internet would be seriously damaged..."

That does seem a little overemphasized. I think the taps on VoIP does raise (again) the concern of what is the FCC's business. If I should at my neighbor over my fence, do I have to do it in such a way that is compliant with FCC's regulations? What if we decide to use tin cans connected with a string? When does it fall inside the FCC's four flags?

Furthermore, May 2007 isn't very far away for system-wide changes. So then it comes back to the triangle of manufacturing Quality - Price - Speed -- pick any two. If they say it's a requirement within 2 years, indrectly they may be demanding a chunk of revenues going into maintenance instead of expanding service or what have you. Either way, it doesn't seem like it will help consumers in the average case.

Re:What type of lawsuit?

[E-Rock]

No, stupid rules aren't illegal, but stuipd rules that will cause harm can be blocked. I didn't RTFA, but you can get an injunction that either prevents the stupid rule from being enforced or invalidates the rule altogether.

Re:What type of lawsuit?

[MaceyHW]

IANAL, but judging by the similar pattern of events with the "broadcast flag" it has to do with the fact that this is a regulation created by the FCC, not a law passed by Congress. FCC decisions can be challenged in court because the FCC has a specific, limited mandate and you can argue that it has exceeded it's authority.

Also, the "seriously hinder innovation" line is most likely a rhetorical tool more than the actual central legal argument of the case

Re:The real question is...

[LilGuy]

Very unlikely. Often times the ones who enforce the rules don't abide by them. Especially in this day and age when anyone can be considered a "national security risk". That's the only excuse they'd have to barf up to weasle out of any litigation.

Re:The facts here are simple

[DrJimbo]

To "sit on a wire" anywhere you should need a probable cause and a warrant.

If by should, you mean in a ideal world, or at least in a world more ideal than ours, then I fully agree with you that such things should be needed. Unfortunately they are not, unless the Patriot Act was recently repealed and no one told me.

Other "VOIP" sources?

[jtroutman]

I'm wondering if this could affect other ways that voice communications get transmitted over the internet. Could they force tapping of voice transmissions over IM? How about conversations on Xbox Live? There are many ways other than Skype, Vonage, etc. to communicate with voice over the internet, would this affect all of them?

And yeah, I could go find the original posting to see if someone already answered this, but I'm here now, so...

policy makers lack of understanding

[ChrisGilliard]

Articles like this show that the people making laws do not understand what their talking about. It's very easy to encrypt your data (including voice conversations). If the US decides that all VOIP should be tapable/unencrypted, the bad guys can use a service based in a foreign country that doesn't force phone taps. They can then communicate. Or better yet, they can develop their own software to encrypt phone calls and would anyone notice? No way, it would just sounds like static or something. Sorry guys, but there's no way to block people from encrypting stuff and keeping their keys locked safely in their own possession. Unless of course, you make encryption illegal, which would be difficult to do, because the privacy hounds would never let something like that happen.

Re:The facts here are simple

[Rydia]

Still need a warrant from a federal judge, albeit in some cases a secret one. If you don't have one, you can go for the immediacy excuse, but then you have to explain later or get slapped. Federal Judges aren't monkeys, you know.

Re:Taps on VOIP?

[ucahg]

VoIP is the web, in a way. It's just a different protocol. If you read the SIP standards, they are very much like instant messaging standards, so can the FCC tap instant messages too? And it's not that different from normal HTTP either, ultimately, so can they tap that? At what point is it under their juridiction? If you are continuously sending packets of voice? What about sending an entire recording at once? How is it different?

These are the questions that I believe were behind the point that it will ruin innovation.

Re:Weasel words, Ho!

[ScrewMaster]

I agree, and may we add two additional weasel words, "rampant" and "piracy" to the list?

Thanks.

Speaking of Stupid Rules....

[pr0t0]

Didn't the FCC just recently win the Brand-X case in the Supreme Court arguing that broadband was an information service and not a telecommunications service, therefore broadband providers were not considered common carriers and under no obligation to "open up" their lines to competitors?

Doesn't it seem at least on the surface, if not directly, contradictory for this agency to have any discussion regarding wiretapping as far as VOIP goes? Doesn't wiretapping only happen on communication services? Doesn't the 'IP' part of VOIP primarily use broadband?

If these two events are contradictory in nature, how can they possibly co-exist without everyone drawing the conclusion that FCC functions, at least in part, to create rules allowing large (or perhaps simply first-to-market) broadband providers to maintain an unfair advantage over smaller or late-comer competitors?

Is this evidence of the belief that fair competition does not exist in the United States? That you can only have as much justice and fairness as you can buy, bribe, and lobby for?

Unless I'm completely misinformed...which may be the case so I'll apologize now...but plesase don't let that stop you from hurling your flames of vitriolic righteousness.