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

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.'"

Re:Rights are inconvenient

[Sarten-X]

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.

Re:FBI's general counsel - having a laugh?

[cdrudge]

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.

Re:FBI's general counsel - having a laugh?

[AK Marc]

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".

The FBI's testimony on "Going Dark"

[blahblahwoofwoof]

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.

Re:FBI's general counsel - having a laugh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Feds have had the ability to target SSL interception for years. Hell, even I had it it in a micro-corp I ran IT at four years ago.

It's available as a commercial off-the-shelft product, and the law enforcement versions have the right connections to 'just work'. THink about that for a minute, and if you don't grok it, go install some SSL Observatory plugins.

Doing /driftnet/ style SSL inspection is another problem altogether.

And that tells you something about the types of intercepts they're having trouble with.

They're not only mining shit when they don't even have a suspect in mind. They're so used to it that they want it to be illegal to make it difficult.

Re: CISPA III: Children of CISPA

[Bing Tsher E]

"Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste"

Re:Yeh, it is disappointing

[moeinvt]

I believe the OP was making the comment in the context of civil liberties. There is no way to frame this in a partisan way. The destruction of civil liberties is one place where the two parties always seem to find that wonderful spirit of bi-partisanship.

Hard to believe, but Obama's record on civil liberties is even worse than that of Bush. He has not only perpetuated, but expanded the Bush Administration's radical policies of executive power and state secrets. Bush illegally detained U.S. citizens without charge or trial, Obama is arbitrarily assassinating American citizens without charge or trial.

Obama has re-authorized the Patriot Act multiple times, he voted for the FISA revisions Act(telecom immunity) and also signed the 2012 NDAA. His "promise" not to use it is absolutely meaningless and could be broken with no repercussions.

Healthcare reform? More like "big handout to insurance and pharmaceutical industries".
Killed Bin Laden? Led the raid and personally pulled the trigger did he?
Out of Iraq? On the Bush time-table and only because Iraqi government refused to sign a new SOFA.

A "two sides" view of the world may relieve you of the labor associated with thinking, but doesn't reflect reality.