National Security Draft For Fining Tech Company "Noncompliance" On Wiretapping 165
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:FBI's general counsel - having a laugh? (Score:2, Interesting)
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. Thus they can't effectuate or put into operation an intercept.
The fact that they think it is perfectly reasonable to force companies to rebuild their systems and protocols to allows for easy interception is insane.
Re:Amazing... (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
We all know what this is about, right? (Score:2, Interesting)
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 would happen to a company that developed real peer-to-peer communications, but wasn't involved in setting up the call (so they don't have the secret to give the government); would they get caught up in the binary fine escalation too?
Re:FBI's general counsel - having a laugh? (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
No, he wants a live tap no warrant (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:FBI's general counsel - having a laugh? (Score:4, Interesting)
"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.