FCC To Require Backdoor Network Access for Feds 492
humankind writes "The EFF is reporting that the Federal Communications Commission issued a release [pdf] announcing its new rule expanding the reach of the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)." From the article: "Practically, what this means is that the government will be asking broadband providers - as well as companies that manufacture devices used for broadband communications - to build insecure backdoors into their networks, imperiling the privacy and security of citizens on the Internet. It also hobbles technical innovation by forcing companies involved in broadband to redesign their products to meet government requirements."
9/11 changed everything.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:9/11 changed everything.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:9/11 changed everything.. (Score:2)
Re:9/11 changed everything.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:9/11 changed everything.. (Score:2, Insightful)
But, they have not won. They will have won when the US no longer exists.
Re:9/11 changed everything.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:9/11 changed everything.. (Score:4, Informative)
The more the US resorts to giving up freedoms in order to "combat" terrorism, the more terrorists win. It's simple, sadly enough.
Re:9/11 changed everything.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who believes that "terrorists want to take away Americans' freedoms" is deluding themselves. They likely just interpret our foreign involvement as bullying and wish us to stop.
Re:9/11 changed everything.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed, they just wish to create fear as a deterreent. The sad part is that the US finds that limiting personal freedoms is a viable way to combat terrorism. It just doesn't work. There's a lot of European countries that suffered terrorism for much longer and never resorted to such measures.
They likely just interpret our foreign involvement as bullying and wish us to stop.
Actually
Re:9/11 changed everything.. (Score:5, Insightful)
US support of terrorism (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the rest of the world feels that the US foreign involvement has little to do with terrorism. I should know, i'm part of them :)
Actually I'd say it who you ask and how you ask, how the questions are phrased. The US has supported terrorists, bin Laden for instance. He is a terrorist the US supported along with the Taliban when they were fighting against the Soviet Union. President Bush gave the Taliban millions of taxpayer dollars shortly after entering office. In Kosovo, Serbia, the US s
Re:9/11 changed everything.. (Score:4, Informative)
This is about engineering the creation of a hardline Islamic theocractic regime (i.e., the return of the caliphate), and the best way to do that is to terrorize the enemy that works to westernize (read "support freedom") predominantly muslim nations. There is a long history of terror and assassination used as a tactic against western incursion:
We are seeing the modern version of a conflict that is hundreds of years old, and it has nothing to do with Usama bin Laden wanting George W. Bush to convert to Islam.Re:9/11 changed everything.. (Score:2, Informative)
...WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:...WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:...WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting thought, but how are they going to do that?
Looks to me like more and more people are going to gt into wireless mesh networks and pgp/gpg just to avoid big brother.
Its' like back in (IIRC) the '60s, when one guy who was being watched by the FBI made it a habit of writing "Fuck the FBI" on sheets of paper in every hotel room he stayed in, shredded them, then dumped them in the trash. So the ag
Re:...WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:...WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF are you talking about. If you are taking a subway in some major American cities today you can now be stopped and searched for no reason and with no warrent. If they catch you with a couple of joints I'm curious if you are going to jail and if they can make the charges stick since it is a blatantly illegal search. There is no probable cause and there is no warrant for these searches. They are about as illegal as they get when they start applying them to people commuting to work everyday.
In the UK the police drew guns and started shouting at a Brazilian electrician because he was dark skinned and wearing a heavy coat in summer. He paniced which is not a surprise when people start yelling at you and drawing guns. They tackled him pumped him full of lead, though he had no weapon, purely on the vague suspcion he might have a bomb. The Brits responded with, oops, sorry.
Its something of a fact of life you are surrendering your privacy to get on an airplane but last time I did it they hand frisked, intrusively, a 70 year old man in front of me. The look on his face was sickening and it was worse because they were intimately searching him in front of everyone with a little table being the only thing blocking the worst of it. At this point I'm thinking, how has America fallen this far. He didn't fit the "Terrorist Profile" either and it was probably the first time in his life he'd been frisked. The lady at the metal detector said he looked "nervous" which is apparently why he was one step away from strip search. He was nervous but only because he was deathly afraid of the security shakedown and amazingly he had reason to be.
There is a fair chance you will soon see millimeter wave scanners in airports which will in effect let total strangers see you naked everytime you go to an airport. If they work there then there is a fair chance they will eventually appear in mass transit.
"If I want to keep something private, I sure don't send it via the Internet, snail mail still works good in that respect"
You are totally delusional at this point if you think the Fed's wont open your mail if you or whomever you are communicating with is the target of an investigation.
" The fact that the Patriot Act got pretty much unanimous reapproval in the House and Sentate says it not a bad deal on the whole."
No it says the political climate is such that politicians will vote for almost any piece of security legislation, no matter how bad. If they don't their opponents will pummel them in the next election for being soft on terrorists and it will work. The quality of the legislation has nothing to do with it. The National Intelligence reform act passed by a wide margin and it instituted the first step towards nation ID cards which Americans would have never tolerated 5 years ago. It eliminated most of the safeguards against intelligence agencies spying on Americans which were instituted because J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon were massively abusing those powers to spy on, blackmail and general destroy their political opponents.
" I really don't care as I'm not going to do something to bring him down on me."
Thats the spirit. I'm sure thats how most American's rationalize it. These news powers are currently only being used to hammer Muslims, most of whom appear to be innocent. You aren't Muslim, you don't fit the "Terrorist Profile" so why should you care. Germans didn't care either as long as it was only they Jews that were being persecuted because they weren't Jewish.
Re:...WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
Forgot to add I'd laugh my ass off if you were communicating with someone who is doing something that the man doesn't like, and who is a target of an investigation. If you are you fall under guilt by association and you wouldn't even know it.
For example you may remember the programmer who was a citizen of Canada, who was snatched by the Feds, questioned and then deported to Syria where he was jailed and tortured for over a year. His crime as I recall, someone in his family asked him to sign as a reference on a lease of this other guy, who had been targeted in a terrorism investigation. His second mistake was he flew through New York on his way from Europe home to Canada.
You see you don't have to be guilty of anything in this wonderful world we live in. You can be targeted for just communicating with someone under suspicion, or you can be falsely accused by someone being pressured through interrogation and threats. For example in the UK now its a crime to withhold information about a terrorism investigation. Three people in the UK are being charged for just this in the wake of the London bombing. If they are falsely accused the only way they can escape this charge is to make up false information to give to the authorities and the easiest thing to do is falsely accuse someone else.
Well, one thing is (Score:2)
Awesome. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Awesome. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait - you're saying they added regulation that limits busineses' freedoms to innovate with broadband and adds invisible costs to the consumer? I thought that was what commies and big-government Democrats do!
Re:Awesome. (Score:2, Interesting)
An ODDLY - the simple fact is that the manufacturers are happy to comply because the capability is likely already there.
A few years ago I had a discussion with a friend who was the CEO of a networking company (before it got bought by Alcatel...) He told me that the companies build this type of backdoor into the routers, etc. for their own reasons anyw
Re:Awesome. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Awesome. (Score:4, Insightful)
So your saying that the republicans shouldn't be blamed because they have caved in where the democrats didn't?
Seriously, that's what you've just said in that post.
Sometimes i wonder if you lot would *ever* condem your partys actions, then i read posts like yours and think "no".
(I am not an american)
Re:Awesome. (Score:3, Insightful)
But the Republican controlled Congress gave it to them.
It's time to stop apologizing for Republican misdeeds and failed policy. It's my party and it's time for an overhaul.
Unlimited searches -- by anybody. (Score:2)
They won't get how bad this idea is until it's used to completely (and publicly) botch some top-secret investigation.
Re:Unlimited searches -- by anybody. (Score:2)
(I hate errors like that).
Aww!! (Score:3, Funny)
Some companies are different that others. (Score:5, Funny)
So do many others (Score:2)
This is a good idea? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is a good idea? (Score:4, Interesting)
Additional security could be implemented to prevent the entire Intarweb from being owned by a single leak. For example, there is no good reason that the FBI should have write-access on these devices. That in-and-of-itself should be enough to prevent worms from spreading. Also, certain key files should be unreadable, such as password lists, in order to prevent the spread of worms.
Now, all that said, I do not think this is a good idea. Nevertheless, backdoors can be created securely.
Re:This is a good idea? (Score:5, Funny)
DAMN YOU SANCHO!
Re:This is a good idea? (Score:2)
(Obligatory reference any time passwords are mentioned on Slashdot)
Re:This is a good idea? (Score:2, Insightful)
Because we all know, especially when it comes to Routers/firewalls and other infrastructure, Joe Six-Pack Owner *Always* keeps up with the latest firmware releases.
Re:This is a good idea? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is a good idea? (Score:4, Interesting)
I know of field techs at numerous companies who use a password based on the serial or model number. One of my clients with a number of higher end printers/copiers has a password of "1111" or "0000". It's set that way so that all the techs know how to get in. In some cases, there isn't a password - only a key combination (like stop-*-1)
Of course, many others quickly figure it out. I can get into maintenance menus of many photocopiers knowing this trick.
Instead, passwords should be based on something like a site number. Still accessable to the techs, but not to the random users.
Why is it dangerous to have a bad password? One tech told me a trick for free copies - either using the maint menu to "test" the machine, or going as far as to disable the pin menu or coin collector. Other machines now have many interesting options to play with - including watching an email address and printing automatically to things like LDAP lookups. Somebody could social engineer your network and get your company directory using the photocopier!
Re:This is a good idea? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the fundamental problem here is not one of incompetence but one of interest.
When you have ways to get unlimited access into the phone network, some very unscrupulous people with lots of money begin to think that maybe they should have access to it as well.
In Columbia, they ran a "drug tip hotline" that was supposed to be anonymous. They got a few leads, then it dropped off. Why? Because the drug cartel had someone in the phone company feeding them the numbers of everyone who called in - whom they then killed.
They switched it up and told people to call from a pay phone. Cartel solution? They tapped the line and started identifying people by voice.
The program was eventually shut down.
There's not much you can do about some of these things - but having back doors like this hurts more than it helps, and with enough resources you can get the keys.
Another problem is that law enforcement likes as few barriers as possible to do their work (no surprise there, I'd hate to have red tape to cut through just to start up vi), so they tend to avoid solutions with things like...logging.
I'm told that the older CALEA systems do not track their uses, and there were some very odd occurrences in NJ several years ago regarding a mafia case that suggested that someone had a way into the system - specifically confidential informants who discussed some things over the phone were then killed.
Of course, no way to tell - there's no logs.
My point is that when you set something like this up, you are point-balancing a sword with many edges.
Re:This is a good idea? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you've gone to the point of the problems with this idea - it brings to my mind the whole problem with gun bans - if you make it illegal to own a gun, it is only the law-abiding citizens who will be disarmed - the people you're trying to get them away from will still have them.
Legislation which assumes that the criminals will follow
So what? (Score:3, Informative)
Big deal. So anyone with a little bit of knowledge and desire can cripple the entire internet in one blow.
We can't let the terrorists win! We must comply with this obivously good idea.
Oh wait...
Security (From The Government) Through Obscurity (Score:3, Interesting)
At which point, I welcome the government's attempt to successfully prosecute me for anything whatsoever: "No, that file of Dubbya, the underage pretzel salesgirl and the goat wasn't mine. You idiots left the backdoor to my system wide open. Literally anyone on the net could have used my PC to host it and you guys are responsi
Re:Security (From The Government) Through Obscurit (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is a good idea? (Score:2)
right to privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:right to privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:right to privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of us remember what it was like to use a computer before the internet. Strangely, they were still pretty useful for a lot of things.
Re:right to privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
So for now, it is alive and well in theory.
But scotus has taken rights that once were fundamental and reclassified them as not (forget which ones right now). So it comes down to what the scotus du jure thinks.
There was a guy in my law classes who, after 911, kept saying that we may have passed into an era where privacy must be sacrificed. I don't think it is necessary and hope he was wrong.
Related comment - last year I reported some vandalism on my property. I refused to fill out the fields for age, race, hair and eye color, etc. The police called me and refused to enter the report (I did it online) unless I provided that information. I said "why? You know where I live and I was the victim (sort of - my property was)" Their reply? "The FBI won't like it." Scary.
Re:right to privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
The good people who start something get replaced by less-adequate, or even corrupt, people, and eventually things go wrong. Not an absolute, but history has shown this time and time again.
There has never bee
Re:right to privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
The stock response is if you aren't doing anything illegal why would you care about privacy. This is only to catch bad people doing bad things. You aren't a bad person doing bad things are you? At this point you can see why only activists will fight it. Your average citizen isn't going to complain because that just makes you ripe for further attention by the authorities. The man in the suit might come knocking and ask, "Why are you wanting to use encryption and hide your activities from us Mr. Garstka."
American's don't really have much of a sensitivity, at present, as to why police states are bad. They aren't likely to start caring until its to late. At the moment its really only Muslim's that are taking the brunt of it and most Americans aren't Muslim. For example two men in Detroit were convicted on terrorism charges by the DOJ. The two main exhibits:
- A homemade video of their trip to Disneyland which the government insisted was really a surveillance tape to plan for a terrorist attack, and just cleverly made to look like a tourist video.
- A conman up on fraud charges was offered a reduced sentence if he testified against them. Predictably he took the offer. Unfortunately for the DOJ he started talking to cell mates and admitted he lied to get his charges dropped and the case was overturned, but not until two Muslim men and their families had been put through living hell for having video taped their Disney vacation.
This instance is covered in the fascinating BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares [archive.org]. If you want a primer on why your right to privacy is being eviscerated by the powers that be, its a good starting point. It also highlights some fascinating similarities between the neoconservatives currently running America and Britain and Islamic fundamentalism. In many respects they need each other and are using each other to attain their goals, the end of western liberalism and liberties. They both want a return to regimented societies dominated by their respective religion's concept of law and order.
Re:right to privacy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:right to privacy (Score:5, Informative)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now, maybe I'm just a crazy left-wing wacko, but I think one should be able to reasonably extraplotate "papers and effects" to include their own computer networks and files.
Re:right to privacy (Score:3, Funny)
You got the sides wrong, leftists don't rely on Constitution. Back to Montana, militiaman!
Re:right to privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
You have the right to assemble.
You do not have the right to be secure in your "persons, houses, papers, and effects" while being added with you PC to assemble in a timely and organized fashion. This new efficiency would give you the ability overthrow a tyranny. We can't have that.
Re:right to privacy (Score:3, Informative)
Great (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:3, Interesting)
SSH tunneling (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if I can trust my university's networks; maybe I should SSH tunnel to my computer science department account.
Huh.
Re:SSH tunneling (Score:2)
Re:SSH tunneling (Score:2)
Re:SSH tunneling (Score:2)
Seems to me this problem exists whether gov't interferes or not. Sure, it'll be worse, no doubt about that. But if you ask me, you should be taking steps to a.) Limit the amount of sensitive info going through an b.) Minimizing the risk of somebody having that info.
Why do they always have to be insecure? (Score:2)
What if it means that the equipment will accept connections if it passes a rigerous sshv2-dsa key handshake, with a really, really big key size? I don't see that being insecure, setting aside concerns about the stupid feds being bitches [wikipedia.org] in power games leaking the key. Technically, there's nothing stopping them from making it secure (as secure as you or I have our home systems, that is).
Re:Why do they always have to be insecure? (Score:5, Insightful)
One malicious Fed with the access key can leak it, or eavesdrop on anyone at will. Perhaps he was blackmailed by the mafia, or wants extra money by selling info to spammers, or incentives are otherwise skewed.
Time and time again, we see that eavesdropping systems are abused by insiders. That's why limiting the availability of eavesdropping technology to exactly what's required is the most secure choice.
Re:Why do they always have to be insecure? (Score:4, Informative)
The dominant SSH implementation (OpenSSH) isn't even based in the US, so the FCC doesn't have the power to mandate backdoors in it.
huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I see problems with it, like Skype is not a US company and implementing CALEA functions for monitoring on Skype servers would not be legal in other countries?
I don't think that the government has a clear grip on what the Internet is yet, but by allowing VoIP to replace traditional switched circuit voice networks, they lose monitoring functions for legal wiretap operations. This just gives it back to them, though I'm not sure how they will implement it worldwide, nor do I think it can be done simply within the borders of one country since it is run over the Internet in many cases. Sure, if Comcast offers VoIP, then CALEA would apply, but I see trouble with Skype and Gizmo services.
Also makes me wonder how far the reach of CALEA will go, given the current state of anti-terrorism and related activities.
I just don't see how this hobbles innovation.
Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
And again the sky is falling. (Score:2)
How many people have a service like that? It looks like they want to retain their wiretap capability for voice communication as we move into VoIP, not monitor everything you do.
Sheesh.
Sweet! (Score:2)
Oh, I'm sure the economist weenies will start crying, "The trade deficit is too high already!" Claptrap. You want a trade deficit you can really sink your teeth into? America is barely even working at raising the trade deficit. But this sort of move is a great step in the right direction. Focus the entire country
Re:Sweet! (Score:2)
sounds like a disaster waiting to happen...
a diaster waiting to happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course knowing our govt, the spec will be sooo poor and it'll get out and the internet will have huge security holes and hackers and spammers will get a hold if it.. and *foom* govt facilities zombies!
mebbe its time to switch to a bsd router.
Re:a diaster waiting to happen (Score:2)
And the case would obviously end up in a federal court... in which the judges would most likely demean the GPL'ers for attempting to destroy national security.
Re:a diaster waiting to happen (Score:2)
Not necessarily. The backdoor could be, for example, a certain username/password account for logging in via ssh, a piece of GPL'd software. I think this was all trivial; for another example, you can use https for secure banking even if all the software is Free. The security is ind
Re:a diaster waiting to happen (Score:2)
The dominant SSH implementation (OpenSSH) is BSD, not GPL.
Freedom in the US, and implications for business. (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition to the immediate 'what kind of country are we becoming?' blood-curdling privacy implications of this law: what is this going to do the competitiveness of American manufacturers? Other countries are not going to accept back-doors for the US government in their network products.
global pw (Score:2, Funny)
Re:global pw (Score:2)
Why doesn't the FCC just buy CoolWebSearch? (Score:2)
This will expand the market (Score:2, Funny)
so go with a router you can run Linux or BSD on. (Score:4, Interesting)
The question is, why aren't people assuming that plaintext is a bad thing already?
Re:so go with a router you can run Linux or BSD on (Score:2)
Re:so go with a router you can run Linux or BSD on (Score:2)
And? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or am I missing something?
It's things like this... (Score:2, Funny)
anyone else think.... (Score:2)
i just find it hard to believe that after so many tries, the standards body couldn't find a way to make wifi even remotely secure. a war driver or a script kiddie can crack it in a matter of minutes at most.
also it isn't the populace's responsibility to make it easier for law enforcement agencies to eavesdrop/do their job.
Ignorance Is Strength (Score:2)
Only on commercial boxes? (Score:2)
Criminals and terrorists can get said software if they want to. Heck, they can probably get it for free, legally. They can use that to talk to each other over the internet; granted, it won't be as convenient as phone-like service with standard phone numbers, but it'll work. Meanwhile, the government retains the a
What's a broadband device? (Score:5, Interesting)
Even regular consumer devices like Linksys routers are running Linux, so that makes me wonder if the changes have to be hardware or software changes. It's my impression that on a Linksys router, basically everything important is done in software, so I don't see how this could be implemented in hardware.
And obviously, if this means that Linksys routers need to have a patched kernel, will they have to be locked in some way to prevent changes to the kernel? What about the GPL? If the backdoor is implemented as a part of the kernel, and then that kernel is redistributed, then the backdoor code would need to be published, right?
Back in the days when everything was hardware, regulations like this would be cleanly enforceable, but now that the work is done almost entirely in software, it's a mess.
-----------------
mobile search [mwtj.com]
Hmm (Score:2)
I think, America is heading down to a big revolution. At some point, if this goverment doesn't change, it will get overthrown. Empires never lastet.
This will drive up prices on hardware (Score:2)
The key is abortion... (Score:2)
I'm doin some homework (Score:4, Interesting)
Heres a link to the fcc announcement (NOT eff.org's) http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch
Ooooh theres some big telco words in there that I had to look up.
facilities-based isp: isp owns the switches and access servers.
Many isps are non-facilities based or hybrid based, meaning that they buy some access from other facilities-based isps, and have some equipment of their own. It only makes sense that the fcc would want access to the equipment through the people that actually own them.
More specifically the announcement mentioned that they would target the facilities based isps / voIP carriers that allow connection to pstn (public switched telephone network).
You guys have all seen those cop movies where they sneak into the bad guy's house and tap his phone. Well, if a bad guy is using voIP, you can hardly do that. (Well you can, because voIP's standard is not encrypted, although some like skype claim to). So rather than try to tap at the source, which could possibly be encrypted (as teilo said), they just tap it at the point at which it is just pstn traffic again. (Remember they were focusing on services that allowed communication to pstn from voip). So if bad guy A tries to do voIP to bad guy B whos just on pstn, then fbi can listen in, without knowing the location of bad guy B.
This leaves the idea of the bad guys just talking voIP to voIP with encryption. People say that the government can already sniff our traffic and see everything we do, so whats the point of this new legislation? Where are they sniffing from? As of now, I don't think its via these ISPs who are commercially owned with little to no regulation. So maybe this is the government just moving their pieces in to better position on the board.
Just my 2 cents.
Government support of cisco? (Score:3, Insightful)
After all (and I do government security work), Uncle Sam usually does mediocre to terrible infosec...
Seriously, this idea is terminally stupid to the point where I doubt it'll succeed. Even if we dodge the risk (hah!), and the letter of the rule is implemented, grunts like me will just be required to implement secure tunnels to hide stuff that is too important to risk (they add a key, so we add another lock).
Yeah....this one is going to get interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
Or anything else the government doesn't happen to like.
The DHS then begins seizing computers out of homes with search warrents obtained with said data, at gunpoint.
Depending on the dissident or resident, they then go in unnannounced and when they raise their hand above to block the light from going into their eyes during a night raid, they get shot for making a wrong move...
2: A political dissident radio network, TV network, website, ect is broadcasting all over the world wide web. The ADL, APAIC, Oil corporation, wood corporation, ect doesn't like this. DHS gets a sniffer on the line going from their place, then sniffs IP address and begins sending hack signals to the IP's requesting services to the box they are sniffing. They then systematically send signals to each box in line to shut it off or ban it from getting onto said website, radio network, ect.
3: Is there such a thing as secure transmissions on that kind of a line if they can intercept the encryption key going over it?
4: You are now on a "Internet Terrorist Red List" where if you don't do what we will just keep sending disconnect packets to your cable modem every 10 seconds so you can't get on.
The ISP's already have to oblige by federal regulations regarding searches and seizures. So if they've got the evidence they go over the CO, hook a tap on the DSL or tap the phone line itself.....a phone tap works for any residential or other internet service if you've got access to the other end.
Folks, Linux Router Project (Score:3, Insightful)
Barring that there would always the option of circumventing the commercial "spook" internet with a homespun wireless routing or "pringles can" internet.
There is no way that the spooks can bypass determined ingenuity for freedom.
firewall your internal network yourself (Score:3, Insightful)
None of my machines on my network get to send to/from that port without first going thru my NATting and rule-driven Linux firewall machine.
They can hack the DSL modem thru its "insecure backdoor" all they like, but they'll meet only my silent firewall -- just like everyone else.
Slippery slope is the real problem (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with the general idea of governments being able to tap the Internet in the same way as they tap phones, if and only if the system is secure and regulated at least as rigorously as phone taps. In fact, given the choice I'd rather they tap the Internet than phones (where things like encryption are expensive/difficult to employ).
While the general idea of a net tap isn't so bad, the implications are more distressing. Once they get their mitts on the first few layers of the network stack, they'll naturally work their way up. The next logical step is key escrow for encryption. For an old yet relevant paper on this, see:
http://www.cdt.org/crypto/risks98/ [cdt.org] [html]
Among the risks and problems cited in that paper are things that will also be relevant in any sort of network tap, including higher costs pushed onto end users, inherent insecurity in having extra access vectors, and difficulty in preventing abuse of the system.
In the end the idea of a network tap isn't so bad. What bothers me is the difficulty (impossibility?) of doing it right, and the other things that this will set a precedent for.
Re:And what do they want? (Score:2)
Re:Whats the big deal. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Making Airplanes Vulnerable?? (Score:2)
Cylon viruses?
Re:Right to what? (Score:4, Insightful)
You first. You can start with the 9th amendment.