Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Encryption Government The Internet

National Security Draft For Fining Tech Company "Noncompliance" On Wiretapping 165

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the only-criminals-use-pgp dept.
Jeremiah Cornelius writes with what looks to be part of CISPA III: Children of CISPA. From the article: "A government task force is preparing legislation that would pressure companies such as Facebook and Google to enable law enforcement officials to intercept online communications as they occur. ... 'The importance to us is pretty clear,' says Andrew Weissmann, the FBI's general counsel. 'We don't have the ability to go to court and say, "We need a court order to effectuate the intercept." Other countries have that.' Under the draft proposal, a court could levy a series of escalating fines, starting at tens of thousands of dollars, on firms that fail to comply with wiretap orders, according to persons who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. 'This proposal is a non-starter that would drive innovators overseas and cost American jobs,' said Greg Nojeim, a senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. 'They might as well call it the Cyber Insecurity and Anti-Employment Act.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

National Security Draft For Fining Tech Company "Noncompliance" On Wiretapping

Comments Filter:
  • by Fluffeh (1273756) on Monday April 29, 2013 @05:59PM (#43585873)

    'We don't have the ability to go to court and say, "We need a court order to effectuate the intercept."...

    Can this guy be serious? The FBI doesn't have the ability to go to court and ask for a court order allowing them to listen in on conversations? Wow. Just utterly wow.

    • by nbauman (624611) on Monday April 29, 2013 @06:05PM (#43585935) Homepage Journal

      'We don't have the ability to go to court and say, "We need a court order to effectuate the intercept."...

      I think he means, "Without a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, we don't have the ability to go to court ..."

      • by cdrudge (68377) on Monday April 29, 2013 @06:18PM (#43586043) Homepage

        Actually, what I think he means is that even if a court grants an order, if the company does not track or have in place a method to monitor communications, then they could be fined in an escalating fashion.

        For instance, most ISPs track what address gets assigned to which customer via DHCP, but there have been some ISPs that either don't, or won't give that information out as it's not guaranteed accurate. The FBI could get a court order for the information, but if the ISP doesn't track it, they can just say they don't have it. With the draft, the court could levy a fine against the company that can't or won't implement the necessary logging of that information.

        • by AK Marc (707885) on Monday April 29, 2013 @06:28PM (#43586107)
          Just having read TFS, it's about "interception" of communications "as they occur" not logging. The ISPs that were telcos are used to regulations, and all have LI in place. The start-ups didn't design the network from scratch with that in mind, and now they are fighting against regulations that are almost 100 years old, as if they are somehow "new" and a "surprise".
          • by amiga3D (567632)

            I have to ask. What 100 year old regulations are you talking about?

            • by AK Marc (707885)
              The police walk into your telephone switch room with a warrant, you let them listen. That's much much older than CALEA, that's only 20 years old.
              • by amiga3D (567632)

                Eavesdropping? I guess so, people have been eavesdropping for a lot longer than that.

              • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Monday April 29, 2013 @07:55PM (#43586701)

                "The police walk into your telephone switch room with a warrant, you let them listen. That's much much older than CALEA, that's only 20 years old."

                That's pretty irrelevant, though, because with telephones, tapping is pretty darned easy. But with other technologies it has NEVER been possible to "just listen in"... it just wasn't built in.

                That's not "refusal", it's simply not building something in a way that expressly caters to the police. And I don't give a damn. The police don't have a right to run the tech world.

                If they can't keep up, tough shit.

                • by AK Marc (707885)

                  But with other technologies it has NEVER been possible to "just listen in"... it just wasn't built in.

                  Yes, it's not like there was ever a function set up that would SPAN one port to not only the destination port, but an additional tapping port as well.

                  • I could have been more clear. I didn't mean all other technologies. Just some of them.
                    • by AK Marc (707885)
                      Nearly all technologies have "easy" snooping technologies built in. Even point to point fiber. Every teleco office around here has a splitter that all connections into the building runs through. Every cellular base station I've seen deployed will tap a call, though many don't bother and instead tap at the controllers in a more central location.

                      The police aren't running the tech world, they are just requesting that if you build something, that you allow warrants to be served against it.
                    • by AK Marc (707885)
                      And you don't understand how an optical splitter works. You tap the customer connection. Almost no customer connections use DWDM, and if they did, you tap the actual customer connection and hand that to the FBI. If they can't decode it, that's their problem, not mine.
                    • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Tuesday April 30, 2013 @09:39PM (#43597315)

                      "The police aren't running the tech world, they are just requesting that if you build something, that you allow warrants to be served against it."

                      No. The difference is subtle, but it is still a difference and one that makes a definite difference.

                      They are requesting that if you build something, you build it so that they can listen in. That's not the same as just "letting them" listen in when they have a warrant. You have to design your system so that they can.

                  • Physically, yes. And that gets you access to a huge pile of data. Actually finding what you want in there takes more work - things like emails or IM you can simply pull out with a filter, but a facebook conversation would require someone familiar with the facebook architecture and possibly a lot of work. The FBI is going to get very annoyed if they submit the warrant to a company and are told that they've put a man to work on the task, but it'll take a few hours to pull the information needed from seven dif

                • The mechanical telephone system which permitted eavesdropping wasn't designed that way either, police just took advantage of the fact that it was possible. Like you, I'm uninclined to cripple future tech developments by imposing a design philosophy appropriate for mechanical telephone exchanges.
                • by drinkypoo (153816)

                  "The police walk into your telephone switch room with a warrant, you let them listen. That's much much older than CALEA, that's only 20 years old."

                  That's pretty irrelevant, though, because with telephones, tapping is pretty darned easy. But with other technologies it has NEVER been possible to "just listen in"... it just wasn't built in.

                  Uh what? WHICH other technologies? Anything unencrypted going over an ethernet is easy to listen in on. You just insert a tap, like a hub.

                • by alexo (9335)

                  The police don't have a right to run the tech world.

                  Actually, they do.
                  Those rights are called guns, tazers, clubs, "stop resisting" and so on.

              • "We don't have a switch room. So sorry."

                "You're going to redesign your technology to comply with laws designed for an ancient technology that became obsolete decades ago"

                Yeah, that's a great plan.

                • by AK Marc (707885)
                  Wow, are there really so many stupid admins that they have no idea how easy it is to ask "are you CALEA compliant" before buying an aggregation switch/router? It's zero cost and about 5 seconds to be compliant. Why is that so hard?
                  • You have an interesting definition of zero cost. Someone else pays for it, so it doesn't cost us anything and the people who do pay for it don't charge us any extra and neither does designing technology around the capability of being used for eavesdropping, regardless of the actual purpose of that technology have any costs involved.

                    If only we actually lived in that world.
                    • by AK Marc (707885)

                      You have an interesting definition of zero cost.

                      If it has zero cost to me, then it is zero cost. That's not an "interesting" definition, that's the commonly used one. I bet you are one of those guys that believes the word "free" doesn't exist. "If I buy a sandwich, I get a drink for free!"

                    • The commonly used one doesn't actually include situations where it isn't actually zero cost.
                    • by AK Marc (707885)
                      So you disagree with a correct statement because you don't like emotional implications within a single word used.

                      I think you should seek professional help for your inability to just let it go and build a little empathy to understand what the people mean, even if they don't use the word choice you'd prefer.
          • by zero0ne (1309517)

            This seems stupid at best, and a complete waste when they can just go to the ISP / backbone and get EVERYTHING, not just what said person is posting on G+

            • by AK Marc (707885)
              So your argument is that the FBI should snoop more on more people and more traffic, rather than more directed snooping based on evidence? Though I think the real reason is that G+ is encrypted, so the FBI wants it from Google so they don't have to decrypt it themselves.
              • by rtb61 (674572) on Tuesday April 30, 2013 @01:23AM (#43587873) Homepage

                Sorry but targeting the end point of communications is just way to big a reach. What's to stop targeting of Banks, of online retailers, of typical business and how about the typical user. Once you attempt to force end point communications how do you write the law to limit how far that goes. The FBI wants the right to force everyone to become a spy on everyone else, sorry but fuck off. I remain honourable in my communications and spy and deceive for no one. This directly attacks the morals of any administrator of a system and attempts to force people against their will to deceive others.

                • by AK Marc (707885)
                  The FBI (Congress, actually, a Republica Congress, actually) requires that a service provider allow the FBI to tap an individual connection. Nobody is spying on anyone, other than the FBI, though once the capability is in, nothing stops an ISP employee from doing the same.
          • by Anonymous Coward

            Firstly I notice we're not talking about Skype here, but that surely is where they really want a live tap? I think the fact we're not mentioning skype is telling, as in, it already has a live feed.

            Secondly, he's clearly talking about a live tap WITHOUT WARRANT, if the delay from getting a court order won't cause problems, then the 5 minutes to save the voice conversation and send it won't either. So he clearly wants a live tap UNDER FBI CONTROL.

            He's seen Syria and Iran's intercept capability and is jealous.

        • In other words, they want companies to make it easier for them to spy on us. That sounds spectacular!

      • by Sarten-X (1102295)

        Wiretap warrants require a lot more [tumblr.com] than just reasonable suspicion of a crime, though. Wiretap laws were written to fit the idea that phone companies were simple carriers who would respect the integrity of customer's conversations, and since they didn't provide services themselves, people had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Now that we willingly send information to companies knowing it will be manipulated for the provided services, that clear expectation of privacy gets a lot more blurry. Post a threat

        • by nbauman (624611)

          Well, if Law Comics says so.

        • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Monday April 29, 2013 @08:10PM (#43586769)

          "Wiretap warrants require a lot more than just reasonable suspicion of a crime, though. "

          Absolutely. They require probable cause, which means real evidence. Of course, then there are the secret rooms the government built into some telco offices that simply siphon off data without anybody's knowledge or consent. Those are established fact... they are the whole reason Congress had to give telcos "immunity" for passing on the information. But as far as I know, there still isn't a law that allows the government to do it legally or constitutionally.

          "Wiretap laws were written to fit the idea that phone companies were simple carriers who would respect the integrity of customer's conversations, and since they didn't provide services themselves, people had a reasonable expectation of privacy."

          It's not that they didn't provide services. They didn't provide content. As the courts have ruled: there is a lesser standard of evidence needed for telephone records (who called who, and when, for example) than there is for the content of the telephone conversation (wiretap).

          But this brings up a good point. Telcos were (FCC Regulations) classified as Title II "Common Carriers". I.e., they provide the call service, but are strictly forbidden from intercepting or interfering with the content (conversation) without a warrant.

          It is quite possible to classify and regulate Cable companies and other ISPs as Title II Common Carriers. In fact, the FCC has wanted to do it for decades. But lobbyists got Congress to pass a law specifically excluding ISPs from Common Carrier status. That was one of the biggest mistakes of the last few decades.

          The solution: get Congress to remove the exclusion from ISPs. Then the vast majority of your privacy concerns go away, virtually overnight: it will then be prohibited for ISPs (or anybody, including usage trackers) from monitoring your activities without a warrant. Most of the major privacy and security concerns surrounding the Internet simply disappear.

          Sure, there will still be a few criminals doing it now and then. But criminals tapped (probably still tap) telephones, too. But the big problem -- government and corporations -- will be forced to leave it alone.

          • It is quite possible to classify and regulate Cable companies and other ISPs as Title II Common Carriers. In fact, the FCC has wanted to do it for decades. But lobbyists got Congress to pass a law specifically excluding ISPs from Common Carrier status. That was one of the biggest mistakes of the last few decades.

            Sigh. How could you get everything else right, and get this so very wrong? There was no mistake involved. They did precisely what they wanted to do. They saw that all communications would eventually move to the internet, so they gave themselves broad-reaching control over it so that they could perform warrantless wiretapping and exert other forms of control as well.

            Make no mistake. Exclusing ISPs from common carrier status was not a mistake. It was a deliberate and evil decision specifically intended to support warrantless wiretapping and suppression of free speech.

      • 'We don't have the ability to go to court and say, "We need a court order to effectuate the intercept."...

        I think he means, "Without a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, we don't have the ability to go to court ..."

        Oh, I think he knows what he meant... He meant that his superiors have demanded the right to a dragnet, rather than "legal intercept when there's reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed." He's the general counsel of the FBI: He knows what he's saying.

    • by Mullen (14656) on Monday April 29, 2013 @06:07PM (#43585955)

      'We don't have the ability to go to court and say, "We need a court order to effectuate the intercept."...

      Can this guy be serious? The FBI doesn't have the ability to go to court and ask for a court order allowing them to listen in on conversations? Wow. Just utterly wow.

      That leads me to believe that the FBI just says this stuff so that a good chunk of the population, which does not understand the 4th Amendment or Court Orders in general, just buys into what they are saying, just so they can get it.

      How the FBI intercepts anything without a warrant or court order and the evidence is not thrown out of court, is beyond me.

      • by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Monday April 29, 2013 @07:15PM (#43586465) Homepage Journal

        Of course.

        This is what is called "a limited hangout". They are already doing worse. This is to distract from that, and to send a discreet message to Google and Twitter that they function as outsourced, privatized intelligence bitches -- or else.

      • by Khashishi (775369)

        The evidence has to first enter the courtroom to be thrown out of court.

    • No, (Score:5, Funny)

      by gatfirls (1315141) on Monday April 29, 2013 @06:08PM (#43585963)
      They're whining that companies don't drop everything end change their business model to a law enforcement intelligence and evidence gathering organization at their request. *This* is "big government"; part of your business model has to include an Open API to the government with a real time feed to help them do their jobs. It would be hilarious if their response could be to allow them to access the petabytes of information and find the needle in the universe of needles themselves.
    • by Schmorgluck (1293264) on Monday April 29, 2013 @06:08PM (#43585969)
      Yeah, I mean, seriously. Every wiretaping scandal in the past years in the USA is due to non-compliance with due process. Only the judiciary branch can suspend the fundamental rights of individuals. That's what due process is for.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      He isn't saying that they can't get a court order to wire tap. The issue here is much larger than that. As I read it, there isn't an effective way to "wire tap" these forms of communications. They are basically going to fine tech companies until they reprogram their technologies so that the FBI can "wire tap" a chosen individual. From the article they mention that when Google uses SSL on the email client, the FBI can no longer just request that the user's ISP let them sniff the bits from the target. Th

    • by amiga3D (567632)

      Maybe their car wont start.

    • by ganjadude (952775) on Monday April 29, 2013 @08:00PM (#43586721) Homepage

      the FBI's general counsel. 'We don't have the ability to go to court and say, "We need a court order to effectuate the intercept." Other countries have that.'

      Last time I checked, that was always a selling point of this country

    • Obviously unable to do anything practical, since he is only versed in made up mumbo jumbo.
    • by gstoddart (321705)

      Can this guy be serious? The FBI doesn't have the ability to go to court and ask for a court order allowing them to listen in on conversations? Wow. Just utterly wow.

      The really disturbing thing is I think TFA is saying that companies like Facebook and Google would be required to build wire-tapping into their stuff so that if the government ever asks it is there.

      There is currently no way to wiretap some of these communications methods easily, and companies effectively have been able to avoid complying with c

    • by Darinbob (1142669)

      Even more bizarre to me is his subsequent comment "Other countries have that." So what if other countries do something, certainly we could have a higher standard.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 29, 2013 @06:03PM (#43585903)

    The 4th Amendment is getting in the way of FBI evidence-gathering.
    Good; that's what it's for.

    • by Sarten-X (1102295) on Monday April 29, 2013 @06:07PM (#43585957) Homepage
      No, the fourth amendment is there to make sure that investigations are actually investigating something reasonable, rather than just harassing somebody the officers don't like.
      • Don't be so petty. The fourth amendment is so that investigations can't devolve into general-purpose evidence gathering sessions. It's to guarantee our privacy. Nice try, though, in your try to characterize the issue as law enforcement 'just being pesky.'

  • Amazing... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Monday April 29, 2013 @06:14PM (#43586019)
    Its amazing that even with a court system that bends over backwards to help "law enforcement" agencies, they still think they need even more ways to violate basic rights.

    Its really amazing what has happened in the last 30 some odd years, to see a nation which used to truly be one of the freest in the world to now only paying lip service to freedoms. It used to be that if you wanted freedom, you came to the US, now its becoming increasingly obvious that if you value freedom, moving out of the US is the way to go.
    • by amiga3D (567632)

      I wonder where you were planning to move? Australia? China? Iran? England? Just wondering.

      • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Monday April 29, 2013 @06:52PM (#43586289)
        Chile is one of my options, fairly politically stable, modern, fairly free in practice, fairly cheap land, etc.

        Some of the non-EU European nations wouldn't be bad, a bit more expensive, but Andorra and Switzerland are potential options. Even though I don't really like crowds and big cities, Hong Kong and Singapore wouldn't be too terrible to live in, but again its more expensive.

        The real test though is how free countries are in practice, I mean, North Korea's constitution guarantees freedom of religion and expression, but it certainly isn't practiced. Similarly some countries may have more restrictive laws, but they are never enforced which provides more freedom in practice than a country with laws guaranteeing freedom but that restricts the practice of it.
        • Hong Kong and Singapore wouldn't be too terrible to live in

          You'd go to Hong Kong or Singapore for greater protection against government intrusion? Our government pisses on our Constitutional rights, but in those places there aren't even any such rights to piss on.

    • by AK Marc (707885)

      It used to be that if you wanted freedom, you came to the US, now its becoming increasingly obvious that if you value freedom, moving out of the US is the way to go.

      That's why I left. I now live in a "socialist" country with lower taxes and more services.

      • Re:Amazing... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Darkness404 (1287218) on Monday April 29, 2013 @06:56PM (#43586327)
        Yeah, I certainly can believe it.

        There is a huge disconnect between how countries are portrayed in the media and how they actually are. I mean, who would have thought back in the "cold war days" that someone would flee France for Russia for economic freedom!

        What people think they believe in and what they actually believe are two separate things. I remember talking with my grandparents that they were scared that Obama would put the country under martial law, and then when Boston basically went under martial law, they praised the police and thought it was great what they were doing!
        • by TheCarp (96830)

          > What people think they believe in and what they actually believe are two separate things. I remember talking
          > with my grandparents that they were scared that Obama would put the country under martial law, and then when
          > Boston basically went under martial law, they praised the police and thought it was great what they were doing!

          Agree with your points but, think you picked a terrible example. I am here in Boston and, generally the first one to be a detractor, but, mostly...mostly....I think they

          • Re:Amazing... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by ClintJCL (264898) <[clintjcl+slashdot] [at] [gmail.com]> on Monday April 29, 2013 @08:23PM (#43586827) Homepage Journal
            You really suck at history, huh? Boston has faced bombers MANY times in the past. MANY. For giggles, google how it relates to the molasses massacre that killed score(s)....
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Bing Tsher E (943915)

              "The situation is unprecedented, so unprecedented extreme measures need to be taken" is a standard ploy for those seeking to exercise extreme state power.

            • by TheCarp (96830)

              This isn't about a bombing. I know we have had bombings. We have had bombings, we have had anarchists convicted of crimes they likely didn't commit. However, this incident was really different in that it was an active pursuit of a bomber on the run. Its not like they got a tip he was in watertown and swept the area in a random search.

              Lets not forget how this came about, the police became engaged when a person called, saying he had been carjacked at gunpoint, by men claiming to be the Marathon bombers. At so

          • by AK Marc (707885)

            or the, at least one, house they did search with explicit non-consent.

            The law is pretty specific about this. If a violent crime is in progress, then the police have the right to pursue. If a kidnapper breaks into your basement without your knowledge and the police saw him enter with the hostage, the police have the "right" to break into your house and search it. They "shouldn't" use anything found against the homeowner, but they can do so in pursuit.

            Much more alarming is the pursuit of the LA cop, who they shot out cars of the wrong person and all that. But that seemed t

            • by TheCarp (96830)

              > Much more alarming is the pursuit of the LA cop, who they shot out cars of the wrong person and all that. But
              > that seemed to get less press than other less interesting things.

              No shit. That was extremely disturbing on every level, from shooting up the wrong car to the way they surrounded him and burned the cabin down and the speed with which the whole incident got dropped.

              • by AK Marc (707885)
                Or the fact he had to go on the run because he whistle-blowed against racism, and the response was to persecute him until he killed some harassers, then label him a troublemaker (mostly retractively, from what I can tell, there weren't issues until after he started complaining about the racism). Then he was branded a cop-killer when he was the cop. But they focused on "cop killer" not "killer cop" to help keep it looking like cops are good. And there was minimal coverage of the massive mistakes tracking
      • I now live in a "socialist" country with lower taxes and more services.

        Which country is that? Serious question.

        • by AK Marc (707885)
          Well, when I've posted that before, I was pointed to a page on Wikipedia that indicated there were only two "socialist" countries with less tax burden than the US. Australia and NZ. Australia has better economics and worse social health at the moment. So if oyu are looking for a place, pick one of those. I'd have considered the UK, but they dropped their points-based immigration system for skilled migrants, so I wasn't willing to take the gamble on job offers and such to get in there.
      • by moeinvt (851793)

        "I now live in a "socialist" country with lower taxes and more services."

        Yes, but did they let you keep your 'AK' Marc? :-)

        • by AK Marc (707885)
          No, I haven't applied for a firearms license. But such weapons are legal, so long as the owner is authorized to own weapons. The rules are strict, but are not much more than the US background checks with a further check that the weapons you buy can be secured in a gun safe or other appropriate container to reduce the chance of accidental discharge or theft.
    • I know...I swear to God, it's like watching Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein argue about how best to implement and protect a democracy; and the sad part is, they're doing it in earnest, they're really trying, but they just can't fight some of those inner tendencies of theirs that cause things to kind of drift off course...

      The more I watch these courts bend over for the J. Edgars, the more I contemplate being cremated and having my ashes stuck in a rocket, because I simply refuse to be buried on a planet w

    • This is what shows the true evil genius of OBL; he knew USgov didn't believe in any of the lofty rhetoric they mouth during their silly oaths. All he had to do was launch one successful domestic attack, then sit back and watch the US government panopticon its own citizens for power and profit - as those selfsame citizens chanted 'USA! USA!' all the while.

      Mission Accomplished
  • translated (Score:4, Insightful)

    by waddgodd (34934) on Monday April 29, 2013 @06:21PM (#43586065) Homepage Journal

    "What's the point of a warrantless wiretap if we have to go to court to get compliance?"

  • by SuperBanana (662181) on Monday April 29, 2013 @06:23PM (#43586075)

    Just a reminder that OSHA and EPA fines, when they happen even under the most egregious circumstances, typically result in fines that barely break four digits.

  • by Areyoukiddingme (1289470) on Monday April 29, 2013 @06:58PM (#43586343)

    Also known as the Capitalize On The Boston Bombing Act.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Say you're trying to get someones gmail traffic. Conventionally you could tap it anywhere along the path, so it made sense to pick the ISP who may not have the resources (small ISP) or inclination (AT&T et. al) to resist a bogus wiretap request. The absolute last thing you want is someone like google with resources and inclination to look at your flimsy wiretap request.

    Hence the panic. The funny bit is that this is yet another bandaid - true peer-to-peer communication ups the ante again. I wonder what w

  • by sacrabos (2563893) on Monday April 29, 2013 @07:13PM (#43586459)
    Yeah, many other countries don't have a 4th Amendment and other Constitutional protections and restrictions on government.
  • by oDDmON oUT (231200) on Monday April 29, 2013 @07:41PM (#43586617)

    I don't think Egypt and the Arab states should be held out as role models.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 29, 2013 @07:49PM (#43586655)

    Then we'll see all this Bush/Cheney crap reversed.

  • They should go after laundromat cork boards next. Also billboards, movie theater screens, and bluetooth keyboard output.

    This is about enabling interception of any communications, right?

  • Just fuck the 4th amendment. It's easier without it getting in the way of a "police state".

  • by blahblahwoofwoof (2287010) on Monday April 29, 2013 @08:34PM (#43586859)

    Respectfully submitted: Did anyone bother to read the FBI's actual testimony, which was linked in the WaPo article?

    http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/going-dark-lawful-electronic-surveillance-in-the-face-of-new-technologies [fbi.gov]

    Note the date of the testimony: February 17, 2011
    This has been on the burner for a while now.

  • by WaffleMonster (969671) on Monday April 29, 2013 @11:41PM (#43587561)

    "information services" are exempt from CALEA. CALEA is only for access providers not web sites and information services.

    Having the FBI say they don't seek to expand their existing authority while concurrently seeking to have CALEA apply to "information services" is nonsensical doubletalk.

    Under CALEA and common sense you cannot be compelled to cough up keys you don't have so the only choice is to go after information services which is a breathtaking new grant of authority *explicitly* excluded from all existing CALEA legislation.

    Note TFA also talks specifically about communications between peers without a centralized intermediary....ie direct communications between two XMPP clients. How the hell do you technically accomplish this without fundementally turning the Internet and general purpose execution environment into a locked down police state?

    LEA needs to come to terms with the fact they don't get to wholesale easedrop on all communication in clear violation of the law anymore. Its not like they can't already get a warrant for emails from messaging providers and its not like we don't already have fucked up legal regimes like the third party doctrine which effectivly bypasses our rights to privacy when our information is stored on third party systems.

    Part of the problem is everytime the government decides to invent absurd concepts out of thin air like free reign on emails > 180 days or grant immunity from civil action when telcoms break existing law more and more people and technologists deploy more and more encryption by default. SMTP between mail systems, IMAP..etc now often using TLS by default..etc. Part of this is government getting what it deserves for acting more like a nation of kings rather than a nation of laws.

    It is hard for me to understand with the blessing that is facebook and the rise of massive messaging providers why LEA continues to complain. Full visibility into virtually all bit torrent downloads... They actually have it better than ever before but nothing will ever be enough.

The ideal voice for radio may be defined as showing no substance, no sex, no owner, and a message of importance for every housewife. -- Harry V. Wade

Working...