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."

Encryption?

[GreyWolf3000]

If I choose to encrypt my VOIP traffic using some sort of TLS, would such a ruling allow the FCC to force me to give them my encryption key?

Re:Weasel words, Ho!

[fshalor]

Ohoh... we're (a campus) actually looking at rolling out an inhouse VOIP solution to save us money over the pots system.

The new policy is " for every network drop, put in a phone line" (so cat-5 and cat-3 ran to every wall box) and "for every phone line ran, run a network drop". (same) And this is now (increased) to , two cat-5's and one cat-3 per box.

The thing is, we have so much internal bandwidth that there's no sense paying for the phones they way we are. I mean, for the price of three phone lines per month I can drop a fresh multimode fiber into a core switch. (One time cost!).

We'll see how it goes. I'm hoping for the VoIP solution, since we'll be able to be a lot more flexible and move people and numbers around a lot more. Not to mention all the crap we'll get out of the pipes.

Best,

Re:Huh?

[kannibal_klown]

Can someone explain to me (a) why they would have to rewire these networks and (b) how this would stifle the development of new technology? I must be dense...

Well, I'm just guessing, perhaps they don't mean to physically re-wire the networks but completely change the data flow.

For example, it's highly probable that for privacy concerns they specifically set everything up so nobody in the home office can listen in on any calls. It makes sense, as in case of a security audit they can say "we don't have the ability to eavesdrop, check our infrastructure if you doubt us."

With this ruling they may have to allow feds access to a hub or something that will allow them to intercept all traffic and listen in on both sides. Skype would be a real pain in the but as they supposedly encrypt their transmissions. They'd need access to everyone's keys.

But I'm just guessing here.

It's not possible

[MoogMan]

Well, if they had any fucking sense, they'd realise it wasn't possible. You can still (In the SIP/SDP case) send an arbitrary codec description over a call. The actual call is point-to-point.

Even taking into consideration the possibility of codec recognition and denying calls based on a restricted set of codecs, you could just place a "signature signal" at the start of the call - something relatively inaudible to the human ear - that triggers encryption etc. Maybe in the same way as Amateur Radioers have a blip at the start/end of speech.

The real question is...

[2names]

if you encrypt your traffic and the FCC or some other Govt agency attempts/succeeds in breaking your encryption, could it ("they") be found guilty under the DMCA?

s/allow/require/

[frankie]

Aside from being a dupe, this submission is worded horribly. The FCC ruling does not allow VOIP-tapping; that's already allowed under standard warrant laws. The ruling is that VOIP providers should be required to make it just as easy to tap a VOIP call as it is to tap a land or cell call, by hooking into the phone company trunk. Given the wandering nature of internet packets, it would be intrusive, expensive, and possibly infeasible to add to an existing system.

Re:s/allow/require/

[moviepig.com]

The ruling is that VOIP providers should be required to make it just as easy to tap a VOIP call as it is to tap a land or cell call.

"While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping..." - E. A. Poe

Is it naive to suppose that serious miscreants know how to evade eavesdroppers?

Easy workaround

[dtfinch]

Use open source secure VOIP software, preferably developed outside the US. If it doesn't go through a service provider, and it's encrypted, they won't succeed in tapping it without first hacking one of the endpoints, no matter what outrageous laws the FCC takes upon itself to pass.

Re:Weasel words, Ho!

[Control Group]

1.8026175 × 10^12 furlongs per fortnight

c?

Re:The real question is...

[Mac Degger]

I agree with your sentiment that in the current administration, this is a very dangerous development, I'd say a land grab, really.

However, here at /. and elsewhere, we're always bitching about new laws being drafted to cover stuff which happens on the 'net, when there are perfectly sane and established ones which would cover the case. And here's just a situation like that, only the other way 'round. Wire-tapping is (if there is oversight to prevent abuse, checks and balances etc) something which law-enforcement needs. Any non-tinfoil hat type would agree to that. And that should apply to any instance, be it POTS or VoIP (or email, I'd say). Wiretapping is about intercepting communications between criminals, irrespective of the system used.

Now I can understand people being quite scared of the current US administration (what with the Guantanamo, we can put you away and no-one will ever hear from you again, AND we can torture you 'cause we say the Geneva convention doesn't apply to us government you have right now), but !!with a decent government and decent checks and balances in place!!, I personally find it rediculous that anyone could be against the tapping of VoIP/e-mail or whatever. It's how you catch criminals.

Note, however, that I'm fully for encryption; you really don't want your next door neighbour/copeting company to be tempted to read that open communication you're discussing your trade secrets over. But then a government would just have to outspend if they want to decrypt and read it...having to hand over keys is too insecure; encryption is secure so long as it's only governments which have the computing power to crack it.