VOIP Progress To Be Hobbled By Wiretap Costs? 392
vaporland writes "This article @ nytimes.com talks about the reasons that development of commercial VOIP may be stifled by the costs required to allow the federal government to listen in on conversations. It is the intention of the FBI, et al, to provide a truly unfunded mandate to force VOIP service providers to develop and provide this wiretap access to them at no cost to the U.S. government, which is to say, the consumer of VOIP will foot the bill for allowing the government to listen in on our phone calls. Perhaps they should just hire some script kiddies to show them how to do it on the cheap?"
Better idea.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Better idea.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Better idea.. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's how a police state works.
Re:Better idea.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Encryption is far too widespread to outright ban. A more likely (but still doubtful) scenario would be the government forcing users of encryption to hand over their keys so t
Re:Better idea.. (Score:2)
Surely your last point is prevented by the right to silence and the right not to incriminate yourself?
Re:Better idea.. (Score:5, Informative)
The US Supreme Court has already revoked your right to remain silent when a police officer asks you your name. Google: Hiibel [google.com]
And in 2001 the US signed the Cybercrime Treaty, [google.com] but fortunately the US Senate has not (yet) ratified it. There are a ton of problems with the treaty, from extensive wiretap/data_retention provisions, to requiring the US to issue such warrants and gather evidence and hand it over to foreign police - for activities which are LEGAL in the US (for example France could demand investigations and data for Nazi item auctions), it appears to turn copyright infringment into an extraditable criminal offence, criminalization of vital and fundamental software ("hacking tools").
Oh yeah, and it also says you shall be compelled to divulge your passwords, keys, and other information. And obviously the only way they can do that is by throwing you in prison if you attempt to remain silent.
While the treaty has been signed by 26 european nations, the US, Canada, South Africa, and Japan, it has only been ratified by Lithuania, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary and Albania. Of course Bush and the DOJ support it.
-
Re:Better idea.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Incorrect. That is exactly what they attempted to do already. I could Google up a link if you like, it was even on Slashdot.
France is perfectly welcome to prosecute their local citizen for purchasing a Nazi-dohicky. However they have no business prosecuting a law-abiding American perfectly legally listing a Nazi-dohicky on a perfectly legal US eBay auction site.
And it's not just Nazi auctions, it would
Re:Better idea.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you should approve nuking Paris...? (Score:2, Insightful)
I find this enthusiasm for one guy that is not allowed to leave his country interesting. The volume is literally multiple factors of ten larger than criticism of real infringements of human rights by Iran, Egypt, White Russia, Cuba, most countries south of Sahara, etc.
But since your post contained:
Re:Then you should approve nuking Paris...? (Score:4, Interesting)
May I add for t_allardyce that someone on Kuro5hin.org has been interrogated by some US agency (I don't remember which one) just by posting a message saying "it would be a good thing to kill the (US) president."
Re:Then you should approve nuking Paris...? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Then you should approve nuking Paris...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hummmm, lets consider
Re:Thanks from your government agencies (Score:4, Funny)
Your comment and profile as been added to the database thanks for helping us make this country more secure. From now on please call in advance your lawyer and prepare yourself for a full orifice search if you plan to take the plane, the bus or ride a bicycle on the street cause it will be hell to you.
--Your government agencies
Re:Better idea.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Once upon a time, anyone with a few bucks and the desire could pick up a pistol or thompson gun at a department store and take it home.
Then gangsters began killing people with pistols and submachine guns, so we began tightly regulating their sale and use.
When the police convince the people that only criminals are using encryption, then encryption users will become criminals.
Re:Better idea.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell, there are many ways to even HIDE the fact that encryption is being used. Imagine that on a grander scale ( music streams with hidden conversations, perhaps? ).
No. Guns are physical objects, and in regards to "gangsta"s ( Thurstan Howle III accent please, pinky up ), should rightfully only be sold to adults ( ie: "grownups" ). Encryption is a whole different kettle of fish.
Re:Better idea.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Better idea.. (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is just one of the reasons I have banned it as a network admin and will not use it.
In fact, if the letter of law is followed strictly it is already illegal in the UK (quite likely in other countries as well). UK laws mandate that you must be capable of supplying keys for any of your encrypted communications so that police can retroactively decrypt anything encrypted by you. It is called the RIP act. Thanks god, it does not yet have approved guidelines for enforcement as the initial proposal got shot down in flames because it was allowing even the post offices and local counsils to issue requests for keys... Bless his Blunketness for the jolly good idea...
Skype session keys generation and key exchange mechanisms are not documented. In fact they are not publically available so the actual security is a big unknown. Anyway, if the police asks you for the keys you can only say Ugh... and swallow the corresponding 2 year jail sentence. So they are entitled to jail you for using it already at least in one EU country.
Re:Better idea.. (Score:2)
Despite Blunkett/Blair's attempts to the contrary we still have the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate ourselves.
Re:Better idea.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Better idea.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Got a link for that? I don't think that's true. If asked for the keys you have to prove you don't have them which means getting an expert to say that your communications software dosn't store the session keys.
Re:Better idea.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Better idea.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Better idea.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like the option (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I would like the option (Score:2)
I don't know why they would telegraph their intentions like this. I mean, we all already knew, but still, they hadn't SAID it, we just assumed, but now they've SAID it. Weird.
Who do you think ultimately pays for it anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who do you think ultimately pays for it anyway? (Score:2)
What would be better would be rather than having a system that encourages government agencies to not have to bother to do their job properly and wiretap whoever they want at no cost, how bout they pay for this wiretapping out of their own budget. I would suddenly imagine a world where they have to have much better justification for what they are doing, without the incentive
Protection racket (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who do you think ultimately pays for it anyway? (Score:2)
If a successful hit on me is arranged over a VOIP phone, am I considered a VOIP user, even if I've never heard of them? Howabout if a VOIP phone is used to arrange a drug deal that, when it goes south, kills my innocent passerby daughter? I think it's safe to say we're not looking to protect only VOIP endusers here.
Re:Who do you think ultimately pays for it anyway? (Score:4, Interesting)
If the end-users do not pay the VOIP provider for the cost of the wiretap, then the money will ultimately come from taxes. Which method do you think would be more cost-effective and better managed?
Script Tix are for Kids (Score:5, Interesting)
No cost to the U.S. government (Score:5, Funny)
KFG
I forgot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I forgot... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I forgot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember the simple business model of government: You confiscate wealth from some people, you distribute some of it to special interests (either directly or in the form of some public service), and you keep a cut for yourself.
Everything government does and could possibly do follows that simple business model. With that, it's pretty obvious why beaurocrats are so eager to spend tax money, even when it's an obvious waste -- they will profit either way.
Re:I forgot... (Score:2)
The point here is not that government is full of greedy bastards just trying to make a quick buck. It's that in a capitalist economy, power comes along with money. This is a universal constant. In fact, in any case where you have a powerful person without money, you should look to see who's really pulling the strings. Martin Luther King had some very wealthy backers.
If you stop worrying about t
Re:I forgot... (Score:4, Insightful)
The fundamental difference is that government holds the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, while private individuals and groups (including business) do not. Interaction through force is what defines government; interaction through voluntary association is what defines private organizations. (Any private individual or group which initiates force without the backing of government is criminal.)
It doesn't matter what type of government you're talking about, or what era. The one thing that seperates government from private groups, and always will, is the ability to initiate force as a means to an end.
Re:I forgot... (Score:2)
Besides, would you rather pay higher taxes for the government to figure out wiretapping VoIP or would you rather the VoIP providers figure out a way to do it? I'm guessing the VoIP providers can come up with a solution that, in the end, will be less expensive to the consumer than the Federal government.
...a long time ago (Score:2)
Ever since the government started taxing us, it has been forcing us to pay for the privilege of being spied on.
Re:I forgot... (Score:2)
Well, the right to tap phone conversations has existed in most Western countries for some time. The issue here is "who pays"?
In this case, it's either the customer who's bought a VoIP service or the government.
If the government pays, where do you think the government will get the money from? Free Clue: That tax you pay every year - not all of it goes to bombing third world countries whose name most Americans can't pronounce.
Dang! And I just signed up for Vonage... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dang! And I just signed up for Vonage... (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, I knew when they announced that VOIP providers would have to start being tappable that the costs would eventually make it my wa
Re:Dang! And I just signed up for Vonage... (Score:2, Interesting)
Does anyone know what exactly the costs are that are associated with wiretapping? I mean maybe I just have recieved some misinformation someplace, but I always thought wiretapping-at least on traditional phone lines--was a simple matter of flipping a couple of switches or some other quick solution--IIRC, I thought I had heard someplace that phone companies had built in backdoors to allow that. So I guess my thought is--what is so costly about presenting a subp
Or.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Or.... (Score:2)
this problem is about having mandatory expensive tapping on that VOIP call of yours you would be making over the internet.
dropping the landline having absolutely nothing do to with it(tapping voip)...
--
Re:Or.... (Score:2)
Re:Or.... (Score:2)
Re:Or.... (Score:2)
Trust me, holmes. The month I
remember--only applies to commercial apps (Score:5, Insightful)
Public/private keys are great and all, but for organized crime it would work just as well to use a symmetric cipher and just share the keys. If the criminals are all working together, it shouldn't matter if they all know the key.
Anyway, it always rubs me the wrong way when the feds demand to have backdoor access to spy on us. It's bad enough they have the right to tap a phone at all, but now they're trying to make sure that ability is built into the software? No thanks--I'll use an offshore VOIP provider who doesn't have those nasty requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:remember--only applies to commercial apps (Score:2)
code words are a form of encryption.
Ditch the phone (Score:2, Insightful)
That said most people say "why should i have to pay for the government to bug the phone lines?" Well, they have a reason to bug the phonelines, it's called security. They use it to catch criminals, and the US even got a hold of the terrorist messages before 9/11, too bad GB was too stupid to put it to use.
Re:Ditch the phone (Score:4, Insightful)
You misspelled 'invasion of privacy'. I always thought 'innocent until proven guilty' was somewhat dominant idea of US justice system. Obviously I was wrong.
If you actually justify spying of people by the fact that some of them are (or may be) criminals you are stating, that all of them are guilty of a crime, until proven innocent.
Re:Ditch the phone (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, you're obviously wrong--you're just mistaken about which particular way you happen to be wrong.
'Innocent until proven guilty' does not mean that police can only investigate crimes after they prove the guilt of the suspect. That doesn't make any sense.
To search your home, car, or office, the police must obtain a search warrant. Do they have
On the bill (Score:5, Funny)
I bet some federal officials would get an earfull. If the general population will have to pay for this feature, they should at least know.
my own service (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the government really think that the terrorists are going to sign up for Vonage and not use Skype or their own small app?
VOIP Business Plan? (Score:5, Insightful)
This makes the whole wiretap thing moot. The VOIP cos. won't survive anyway, so who cares if they die a little earlier because of some silly wiretap requirements?
Re:VOIP Business Plan? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to claim the first no-shit-sherlock post in this thread.
But eventually, most calls will be peer-to-peer across the internet just like most other IP protocols and there will be no need for VOIP cos.
*sigh*
Again, US != rest of the world. While this may be true in a more or less near future in the US, the rest of the world isn't the US and there are place in the world that don't have computers, or even the internet. Yes, really!
Re:VOIP Business Plan? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:VOIP Business Plan? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Internet connections most people have just aren't as reliable as electricity and POTS. It's not uncommon for ISPs to have planned downtime for a few hours every other month or so, but I personally haven't had a down POTS line in years.
Re:VOIP Business Plan? (Score:4, Insightful)
Packet based systems are too unreliable. You need to be able to reach 911, etc reliably, lives depend on it. How many times packets just get dropped? "Connection timed out" errors, etc? Much more than phone system failures. And with circuit swtiching, you know immediately and with certainty if the next link is up, and can provide feedback right away that the lines are down, allowing immediate rerouting (at best) or giving a notice to the user, such as a fast busy signal (at worst). With IP, you just have to wait for a timeout and then report it down, and it might have just been really overloaded.
Also, dropped packets in an open conversation will cause severe artifacts in the audio. With circuit switching, once the circuit is up, it is up, unless some equipment or lines fail. No loss in quality due to dropped packets, or because your path over the net speed dropped from 64 kbps to 24 kbps due to congestion, and now YOU sound like you have (nasal) congestion to the other end because there isn't enough bandwidth to make the audio sound right.
And if an IP link fails, it takes a while to know. Did the other person go silent, is the line dead, just congested, what? With circuit switching, you can tell immediately.
IP is not the way for telephony.
As long as there is a public telephone network, there will need to be interconnects between it and the Internet.
What about your federal taxes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ummm, the consumer is going to have to foot the bill one way or another. If the Federal government chips in to pay for it, it's going to come from some form of tax, otherwise it's just going to be a higer bill from your VoIP provider.
Pardon my ignorance but (Score:2)
So what's the big cost here? if nothing else, it would seem less costly than a regular phone tap...
Re:Pardon my ignorance but (Score:3, Funny)
Firstly, theres all the hackers using something called "Linux", the young Feds were trained on MS Windows, and then they have to rebuild their FBI hard coded network monitor to operate on a port other than 80.
Most of all, the retraining fees are needed because they are no longer using mice with balls, they have upgraded and now have mice with frikkin lazer beams attached to their underbelly.
I fail to see really how this can be implimented without actually
Missing *US* part of the message (Score:2, Informative)
What would the Founding Fathers think? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hey, how about we
(1) make sure the government can listen to folks' private conversations, and make 'em pay for the privelige?
(2) restrict political protest to 'free speech zones' where no-one can hear it?
(3) have armed government agents at all ports?
(4) make everyone carry ID documents if they want to travel, and arrange it so we can secretly scan them without the citizen even knowing?
(5) refuse to let someone travel if their name resembles the name of someone we have declared an enemy?
(6) etc etc etc"
Bottom line: do you think the framers would have
(a) enshrined the government's right to do this crap in the constitution, or
(b) enshrined the People's right not to suffer this crap in the constitution?
It baffles me why Americans are not rioting in the streets.
Re:What would the Founding Fathers think? (Score:2)
Seriously, those things just don't hinder people enough. It annoys people when they need to board a plane but they still rather put up with it than go throught the trouble of actually doing something about it.
Re:What would the Founding Fathers think? (Score:5, Funny)
Easy. The streets are not a designated free speech zone.
Outdated thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
How are they going to force non-US VoIP companies to comply with this requirement? It isn't like there aren't already a variety [gnupg.org] of ways to communicate in a manner that thwarts government snooping, the fact that the old phone system made this relatively easy is no reason to cripple modern communication mechanisms.
The Europeans are laughing all the way to the bank (Score:4, Insightful)
Put in idiotic, technically dubious and extremely expensive regulations, and watch as start-ups flounder. Meanwhile, watch foreign corporations refine their (simpler) systems and develop low-cost ways to deliver their service.
The US now has a choice to make: paranoia or progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Non-news (Score:3, Insightful)
The writeup makes it sound like this is some unfair, new thing being lobbed at VoIP. It's not. It's just applying the exact same rules that exist for current system to the new system.
What next? "Government attempts to scuttle VoIP by requiring them to abide by 5 9's reliability and provide 911 service?"
Newsflash (Score:2)
Newsflash: through taxes, consumers pay for EVERYTHING that the government does.
but VOIP is not just "voice over IP". (Score:2, Informative)
Fears for the future (Score:2, Interesting)
The fbi etal want, as a default option, the ability to listen in to ANY call made by VOIP. This means that, as standard, any/all calls can be monitored, any/everyone (even non-American people[1]) whenever they want or indefinatly.
Now people can say "yes but they wont", but as soon as the Intelligent Agencies[2] have this nice new toy how long before they start a) using it, b) exploiting it, and c) turn it off.
The more I see of the c
How long before someone makes... (Score:3, Funny)
"The drugs are hidden in the... "
[Ding Dong - You've Got Feds!]
"..medicine cabinet, just take two asprin and call me in the morning"
My post of the day (CALEA, VOIP, other stuff) (Score:4, Informative)
So now Vonage and Packet8 would have to drop these on their switches, assuming they properly support the standards that the CALEA boxes use. They should have the advantage of easily providing this ability from a single point, I'd imagine their servers are all in a few locations.
The funny thing is, you could just get a VOIP endpoint from a provider in a different country and wala, no CALEA. No fuss. Alot of long distance fees, though.
The last job I worked at, supposidly our employer or a related agency listened in on the home telephone conversations of an employee. The rumor I heard was that an employee was under the scope for downloading hacker utilities (a utility that determines if a host is up by pinging it?). Supervisor heard, called employee at home from his cell phone, both got nabbed, the supervisor for tipping off the employee. This was at the Navy's NMCI project. This was the rumor going around, and I don't know who the people were.
When we were younger we found what we guess were illegal phone tapes while xxx-99xx scanning. Too funny.
There are also rumors that CALEA boxes are insecure, have been owned, are connected to the internet and are using public IPs. Another conspiracy theory says they were implemented by companies that are foreign owned and were being unknowingly used to listen in on the president and led to premature release of the Monica Lewinsky audio to reporters. That is all conspiracy theory, search around. You never know, the gov't does some pretty dumb things sometime.
There is a good article in Business 2.0 about drug cartels using the data from phone switches to track federal agents and their people, by cross referencing phone numbers. They used an AS/400.
And in case you didn't know, you can listen to a Popeye's chicken drive thru in Southeastern Virginia live... open http://audio12.hrconnect.com:8000/popeyes.m3u in any mp3 player that supports internet streams/m3u playlists. Enjoy! Don't forget, EST time.
Doesn't "hobble" progress (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is with conversations now being transmitted in packets as opposed to analog signals, its impossible to tap the wire conventionally. The only place you could do that is from where the signal is converted back to POTS (plain old telephone service) to the house. Which, in a perfect VoIP world, isn't going to even be an option as people are using things like cable modems as their VoIP gateways (so its digital all the way from the house).
However, I don't think this "feature" hobbled our progress. It was just another feature in an extremely long list of features that were necessary. I don't think it took the engineer more than a week to implement, but possibly its more difficult in different architectures? (A key to Nortels architecture was being able to seemlessly integrate with POTS service, so digital->analog conversion was basically a built-in).
Now, whether I agree with the "feature" or not is a different story, but I won't go into that....
Simple solution... (Score:3, Insightful)
VOIP data can go encrypted from the US to the NOC's and from thereon routed to wherever it should go (again, encrypted).
The only place where it is unencrypted is either at the endusers or maybe at the endusers and at the NOC.
But even in the latter case, the NOC being in a country with no FBI jurisdiction, there should be no problem - privacy is thus protected.
Or maybe, thinking out loud here, a Bittorrent like network of unassociated nodes can be laid out to secure communication. Most likely there are already some realworld examples of these.
*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically what I'm saying is that VoIP wiretapping regulations seem to be pointless. They can't prevent individuals from encrypting their own traffic when making direct connections to eachother anymore than they can prevent people from using SSH or HTTPS. And the only time 3rd party VoIP providers (who can be regulated) are even needed is when gatewaying to the PSTN, which can be tapped anyway.
De-centralize (Score:3, Interesting)
Provide services around the VOIP like a voicemailbox or a phonebook. charge for those services, not for the VOIP.
Since you're not into VOIP, let the FBI go elsewhere with their demands.
for free VOIP: http://www.speakfreely.org/
Maybe they should... (Score:4, Interesting)
...quit trying to force the use of technological solutions. I'd rather require them to physically place a bug in my cell phone (or PC mic) than require all of this accursed intrusion and cost.
Backwards Compatibility Is Overrated (Score:3, Insightful)
If I had to guess where this trend was going to start, I'd say college campuses. Large companies have their own internal phone networks anyway, but they need to be reachable to the outside world. I ditched land telephones altogether as a result of college living, and I'm hoping to never go back, unless maybe for VoIP. College students are already using Xbox games for free long distance to their high school friends who have gone off to other institutions. They get to share all the gossip they normally would over their high-bandwidth, low-latency connection, except it's free, and if your buddy confesses that he hooked up with your old flame, you can shove a rocket down his throat.
disconnect (Score:3, Insightful)
Sports Analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Law enforcement, on the other hand, wants everyone to adapt to their way of doing things. They've always been able, from a technological point of view, to listen in on telephone conversations. It was convenient and more or less easy for them to have that capability. Now technology is changing. Instead of learning to adapt they want to force new technologies to adapt to their methods. This is just dumb. Eventually there's going to be technology that is immune to eavesdropping and no law is going to change that. What are they going to do then, outlaw it? They should be using their resources to develop other ways to obtain infromation on the activities of criminals. And in my mind, using one particular form of technology should not be a crime in and of itself, regardless of the restrictions it may impose on law enforcement vis-a-vis what they've been able to do in the past.
I don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you trying to say the government should never be allowed to eavesdrop on criminal communications even with a warrant?! I can't distinguish between that and anarchy. Can somebody please help me?
Re:I don't get it. (Score:3, Informative)
I have no problem with them tapping phones with a warrant. What I have a problem with is their refusal to pay the costs involved, but instead requiring the entire rate base to pay the cost of the wiretaps that they want to use instead of having to pay for them out of their own budget. If the FBI had to pay the
Re:I don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, you want me to pay for it, even though I don't use VoIP? Where exactly do you think federal money comes from?
Re:More reason to vote Libertarian (Score:3)
Re:This is like ... (Score:2)
I never shat on someone's door. Gravity doesn't go sideways where I live.
Re:Cost of civilization (Score:5, Insightful)
Which people? You mean the CIA/FBI? Did you vote to give them this power? Did you vote to elect the people who have access to this power? Did you even vote for the person that hired those people?
The beuracracy is thick. Who is in control? I certainly don't feel like I am.
Re:Cost of civilization (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of trying to detect attacks, how about eliminating the reasons the terrorists have for attacking us in the first place? Everybody has a reason for doing something... find out what their reason is and eliminate it. I imagine their reason has nothing to do with being really evil and wanting to eliminate freedom, so don't even throw that one in the ring. Nobody is really evil, just greedy and motivated by their own self-interests.
Re:Cost of civilization (Score:3, Insightful)
Bull. None of them would give a stuff about America, if America removed its presence from their country. They don't hate America because of its religion; they hate America because of its politics. Religious differences are just handy rallying points for attracting people willing to sacrifice themselves.
In fact, the same thing can be said of the early Catholic church. What people don't understand when talking about the Catholic church in this period is that it was ju
Re:Cost of civilization (Score:2)
I think it'd be better if every person and dollar currently being used for tapping was instead used to investigate these "guy who wants to crash a plane just boarded a plane" incidents instead.
I think it can be argued that any criminal stupid enough to
Re:Cost of civilization (Score:2)
ORANGE ALERT! ORANGE ALERT!!
I for one, say let's trust the people that we have put in positions of power (for the most part), and let them decide when to use this power.
There's more terrorist chatter, right there.
Re:Cost of civilization (Score:2)
So, we will end up paying for a wire tap system that
I can only speak for myself (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cost of civilization (Score:2)
Two things, the first the most important. What's to stop the terrorists from using encryption and defeating the wiretaps? In fact I'd say it's a damn good bet they will, they're not stupid, nuts maybe, but not st
Re:take what the government claims with several... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, it was not the same government. The OKC bombing was during the Clinton Administration, the Afghan and Iraq wars took place under Bush.
As for the OKC bombing, the debris field looked exactly the way you would expect it to when you place a very, very large truck full of explosives in front of a building. There was a large roughly circular hole in the building with the plack McVeigh's truck was parked at dead center. The far wall stood up to the blast so you would expect the shock wave to bounce off the wall and push debris back out again.
Bush lied about the weather balloons sure, or to be strictly accurate he got Powell to lie for him, just like he has these swift boat perjurers to lie for him. We know what sort of character the man has, he smeared McCain, he smeared McClellan, he is smearing Kerry. But the truth of one conspiracy theory does not make all conspiracy theories true.
As to the phone taps, I have always assumed the government taps, opens mail, plants evidence, hides real evidence, etc, as much as they want to, and warrants and laws be damned.
Which is why procedures to make cryptographic assurance of data integrity are so important. Why do you think that PKI companies are involved in placing the taps? It is so that there a cast iron chain of evidence is possible.
Its bad when O.J. gets away with murdering his wife and a waiter. It is worse when people go to jail for the rest of their life or are executed for crimes they never committed. Having assurance that the evidence is sound is a good thing.
As far as terrorism goes, that is not the main area where wiretaps are useful, never has been. Several terrorist groups have come to grief when they used faulty codes. But even the best transport encryption does not conceal the most useful information - traffic analysis. Knowing who Mohamed Atta called in the six months prior to 9/11 was very useful.
What Al Qaeda are doing today is using pay as you go chips in cheap mobile phones. They discard these regularly, but not regularly enough. The whole 9/11 plot was done using a bizare mixture of sophistication and sloppiness. If as Clarke had urged W had put the country on full terrorism alert instead of going on vacation to cut brush there was a good chance of being lucky.
That is why Al Qaeda have been so quiet of late. They never did have many people and they lost a significant number in the 9/11 attack. They have also had defections after Bin Laden was heard joking about how some of the hijackers did not know it was a suicide mission.
Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:2)
Why is this insightful? The usefulness of a VOIP company is pretty minimal (compared to p2p-based VOIP) if it can't terminate phone VOIP calls into the PSTN or provide DIDs, and to do that in the US it's gotta have servers in the US somewhere... Right?