Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Encryption Security United States Your Rights Online

FCC Giving Veto Power to FBI Over VoIP? 289

Posted by CowboyNeal from the big-brother-is-listening dept.
An anonymous reader writes "In this article, the FCC reveals that if you're using VoIP products at your own behest then you may have personal legal requirements to provide the FBI with access to information they might want to intercept. Or to put it another way, using encryption with VoIP can prevent the FBI from implementing wire taps."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Giving Veto Power to FBI Over VoIP? More

FCC Giving Veto Power to FBI Over VoIP?

Comments Filter:

  • Loop (Score:5, Funny)

    by JS_RIDDLER ( 570254 ) on Thursday September 29, 2005 @07:10PM (#13680682)
    10 Read aticle
    20 Read the existing slashdot comments here
          http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/28/19 30221&tid=158&tid=215 [slashdot.org]
    30 Repost Comments here // previous /. links the same Cnet article
    • the people's republic of united states.
      • because we have a long history of being able to make untapable phone calls!

        erhhh... wait

      • You have wrong... (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Well, you are half right... when a country puts two or more words like that (people's, republic) in their name, you know its a fucked up country. Take the "People's Republic of China", and the "Democratic Republic of the Congo"... but if you really want it, you have to add another word to make it three, like the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Not to be out done, why not four?

        I propose: "The People's Unified Democratic Republican Co-Prosperity Realm of America"

    • 10 Read aticle
      20 Read the existing slashdot comments here
      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/28/19 [slashdot.org] 30221&tid=158&tid=215
      30 Repost Comments here // previous /. links the same Cnet article

      excellent! a dupe trifecta. There's something quite wrong, when you have 3 dupes in a row... and the duped articles are at most a day old...
    • 3 consecutive dupes! [slashdot.org]

      • Re:Woot! (Score:2, Informative)

        by gcnaddict ( 841664 )
        "3 consecutive dupes! [slashdot.org]"

        Are you sure this is a dupe? I cant find a previous version of this article anywhere. Want to post a link?

        Until then, I guess we can say that "this post of yours is a dupe", right? I mean, you posted the wrong link :P

        • Yes, he is right. 3 dupes in a row. Congrats, Cowboy Neal!

          See this one [slashdot.org] with the exact same article.

          Another great day for Slashdot!

    • I'm a slashdot subscriber. I saw this article before it went "live" and reported it as a dup to the editor on duty. Apparently the editor is asleep, adn has been asleep all day.

      (I was the Original Poster of the article that this is a dup of.)

    • Re:Loop (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Netochka ( 874088 )
      You know I'll never understand the thing all slashdot readers have with dupes. Think of a normal newspaper for a minute, and think about how stories are posted. If a story is interesting it'll usually be discussed for days on end by multiple reporters, editors, etc. and there'll be tons of repeating of information. Now, I know slashdot isn't exactly like this, but there are some similarities that can be drawn. Also, I'm not sure as to the number of stories submitted that the editors have to go through, but

  • In other words (Score:5, Funny)

    by Boap ( 559344 ) on Thursday September 29, 2005 @07:11PM (#13680691)
    Encryption is bad for people who want to spy on you

  • no comment (Score:2, Troll)

    by rd4tech ( 711615 ) *
    According to the three-page document, to preserve the openness that characterizes today's Internet, "consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement."
    • That's duckspeak [wikipedia.org] for "citizens are not entitled to run the applications and services of their choice."

    • But what if you don't obey? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by R3d M3rcury ( 871886 ) on Thursday September 29, 2005 @08:33PM (#13681131) Journal
      Okay, so here's what I'm wondering.

      Suppose I'm an evil person intent on doing evil things and I decide to communicate with my evil minions around the country using some sort of encrypted VOIP-type of thing that I had one of my evil minions put together.

      Suppose further that the US Government gets wind of one of my nefarious schemes, goes to the appropriate judge, and gets a warrant to tap my Internet connection. They then discover that I'm using this encrypted VOIP thing.

      What are they gonna do? Arrest me? On what charge? Using a service which is not "subject to the needs of law enforcement"? What's the penalty for that?

      Are they going to drop me a note saying, "Hey, we can't understand what you're sending. Stop doing that."? Do they have the ISPs shut off the ports? What if I'm using port 80? Does the ISP drop me as a customer? Will there be some sort of federal "Do not let this guy use the Internet" list that ISPs have to check? What about "public" places, like Internet Cafes?

      This is what I don't understand. What is "subject to the needs of law enforcement"? Can the Government decide that I don't need to use a service? If so, how do they block it? Again, if I assemble it myself, how will the government block it unless they stumble across it during an investigation? And if they block it afterwards, don't they think I'll suspect something?

      This sounds like the FCC is trying to play both sides of the street. Yes, you can use whatever service you like, unless the cops don't like it. If they don't like it, something may or may not happen to you.

  • FCC 05-151 (Score:5, Informative)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Thursday September 29, 2005 @07:14PM (#13680721)
    Since the 'obscure policy document' mentioned in TFA is in PDF format, here is the text of that document, formatted and stripped of the numerous bibliographical references:

    POLICY STATEMENT
    Adopted: August 5, 2005 Released: September 23, 2005
    By the Commission:

    I. INTRODUCTION

    1. The availability of the Internet has had a profound impact on American life. This network of
      networks has fundamentally changed the way we communicate. It has increased the speed of
      communication, the range of communicating devices and the variety of platforms over which we can send
      and receive information. As Congress has noted, "[t]he rapidly developing array of Internet . . . services
      available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational
      and informational resources to our citizens." The Internet also represents "a forum for a true diversity of
      political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual
      activity." In addition, the Internet plays an important role in the economy, as an engine for productivity
      growth and cost savings.
    2. In section 230(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act),
      Congress describes its national Internet policy. Specifically, Congress states that it is the policy of the
      United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet"6
      and "to promote the continued development of the Internet."7 In section 706(a) of the Act, Congress
      charges the Commission with "encourag[ing] the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of
      advanced telecommunications capability" - broadband - "to all Americans."
    3. In this Policy Statement, the Commission offers guidance and insight into its approach to the
      Internet and broadband that is consistent with these Congressional directives.

      II. DISCUSSION
    4. The Communications Act charges the Commission with "regulating interstate and foreign
      commerce in communication by wire and radio."9 The Communications Act regulates
      telecommunications carriers, as common carriers, under Title II.10 Information service providers, "by
      contrast, are not subject to mandatory common-carrier regulation under Title II."11 The Commission,
      however, "has jurisdiction to impose additional regulatory obligations under its Title I ancillary
      jurisdiction to regulate interstate and foreign communications." As a result, the Commission has
      jurisdiction necessary to ensure that providers of telecommunications for Internet access or Internet
      Protocol-enabled (IP-enabled) services are operated in a neutral manner. Moreover, to ensure that
      broadband networks are widely deployed, open, affordable, and accessible to all consumers, the
      Commission adopts the following principles:

      To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
      nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of
      their choice.

      To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
      nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their
      choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.

      To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
      nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that
      do not harm the network.

      To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
      nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers,
      application and service providers, and content providers.

      III. CONCLUSION
    5. The Commission has a duty to preserve and promote the vibrant and open character of the
      I
    • thanks I tried to get the doc and the FCC said "The document you are trying to retrieve is temporarily unavailable. Please try again in 5 minutes. If the problems persist, please e-mail EdocsHelp for assistance." looks like the FCC got slashdoted.

      Amazing what happens when the government says the cops can decide what progams my computer can run.

  • The FBI now owns us. We have no right to privacy. (Score:5, Informative)

    by elucido ( 870205 ) on Thursday September 29, 2005 @07:15PM (#13680723)
    You see, our FBI and federal government has the right to tap all our phones, wiretap everything, spy on us, use satelites to watch our every move, and to control our thoughts and remove our freedom of speech. The FBI owns you, you do not own the FBI.

    So just let them search your house and tap your phone, its not like you can stop them and its not like anyone cares about the constitution anymore or privacy. For all the talk I hear on slashdot, none of you actually care about privacy or the constitution. If you do, then prove it and defend the constitution.

    See for yourself how you can defend the constitution if you actually care about it. Save the constitution [defconamerica.org]
    • There are a few things not covered in this ruling. The main one is end-to-end VOIP w/encryption. For example, how about VOIP via something like H.323 over an IPSec tunnel (point to point). So to say we have no right to privacy is misguided.

      The idea seems to be that the courts should be able to authorize wiretapping of any media regardless of whether it is a traditional phone system or a VOIP connection over a public network.

      Or how about someone using VOIP on a corporate intranet via a VPN? I would assume that these are explitly not covered? Especially if we are talking IPSec/GRE tunnels with traffic running through them. All law enforcement would know by tapping your broadband provider is that you are logged into the corporate VPN and that there is traffic going back and forth. You would not even know where the call was going or even that it was a call.

      The second question is far more tricky.... Imagine that someone sets up some VOIP termination servers in a non-extradition country like Belize. These require IPSec/GRE tunnels and have a client that will set things up for you. The goal is to have a free worldwide and secure system. It seems to me that this would be well beyond the FCC's juristiction. But this might well be the way that things develop.

      • The idea seems to be that the courts should be able to authorize wiretapping of any media regardless of whether it is a traditional phone system or a VOIP connection over a public network.

        That's asinine (not you, their idea).

        I believe I've heard it compared to the old law, "every horse-less carriage must be preceded by a person on foot holding a lantern to light the way." Yes, it worked in its time and aided society and our growth as a country. But if we tried to enforce that law today (if it's ev

    • Looking at your link, I must say I'm somewhat disappointed to see it only hit the religious right. Certainly, you can lay some of the threat there - but they're not alone.

      Plenty of people who would define themselves as moderates or liberals seem to be willing to give up much of their freedom if the request is phrased the right way.

      Very few people seem to be concerned with losing their freedoms - though most don't realize what's possible just under current law.

      And if you bring the subject up in public,

    • Re:The FBI now owns us. We have no right to privac (Score:5, Interesting)

      by demachina ( 71715 ) on Thursday September 29, 2005 @08:03PM (#13680985)
      Well its a subject for heated debate whether the constitution does assure you a right to privacy and what the bounds of that right are. When telephones came in to common use in the early twentieth century it was routine for the police to listen in on suspected criminals or maybe anyone they wanted to find some dirt on.

      The first Supreme Court case tested wire taps in 1928 in fact found in favor of wire tapping, because ... wait for it ... the police were not entering the persons home so they were not invading the privacy of their home. Here is a good link on the history of the right to privacy [state.gov].

      Here is a particularly important part on wire tapping. Justice Louis D. Brandeis was writing in the dissent in Olmstead v. United States (1928). His view would ultimately prevail years later and is now in grievous danger of being overturned again by a rising tide of Fascism in the U.S. :

      "Whenever a telephone line is tapped, the privacy of the persons at both ends of the line is invaded, and all conversations between them on any subject, and although proper, confidential, and privileged, may be overheard. . . .
      The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure, and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the one most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment."

      Its important to read this stuff these days. The right to privacy was the cornerstone of the confirmation hearing of our new Chief Justice Roberts, names like Olmstead and Griswold. There is a suspicion Judge Roberts appointment is designed to overturn all the cases affirming right to privacy, a right to not have your phone tapped, a right to abortions, a right to access birth control.

      Religious fundamentalists banned birth control in Connecticut in the 19th century. When this law was challenged in 1965 in Griswold .vs. Connecticut it laid the foundation for much of our modern right to privacy, in this case it was an individuals right to practice birth control without state intervention. This evolved in to the right to an abortion in Roe v Wade.

      J. Edgar Hoover used wire taps and his control of the FBI to accumulate vast amounts of dirt on anyone and everyone, and insured he held an iron grip on the helm of the FBI and in fact the U.S. in general for decades. No one would challenge him because he had dirt on everyone. He was the ultimate defiler of the right to privacy. With modern techology and the collapse of our right to privacy thanks to fear mongering politicians the potential is great for the rise of new J. Edgars who are even more powerful and more dangerous. A leading candidate is George W's new National Intelligen Director, John Negroponte. He doesn't control the FBI he controls the CIA, the NSA and every spying resource the U.S. has now. Negroponte was infamous for supporting right wing death squads in Central America that did Fascism proud.
      • The first Supreme Court case tested wire taps in 1928 in fact found in favor of wire tapping, because ... wait for it ... the police were not entering the persons home so they were not invading the privacy of their home

        I don't see how that deserves a "wait for it". I really don't see how a person owns the eletrons on a line once it leaves his or her property. And frankly, given today's access to encryption, that sort of ruling makes a lot more sense today than it did back then.

        It's like communication on the
        • I really don't see how a person owns the eletrons on a line once it leaves his or her property.

          Do I stop owning the atoms in a piece of paper when the mail carrier picks it up? Does ownership have any bearing on the expected privacy of the content? Why should my message be any different whether I pay a mail carrier to pick it up and carry it to its destination, or a phone company, or an ISP?
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • With or Without a Warrant? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Thursday September 29, 2005 @07:16PM (#13680736) Homepage Journal
    If its *with* a warrant, nothing new here..

    If its *without* then we have a privacy/rights problem that needs to be taken to the supreme court.
    • > If its *with* a warrant, nothing new here..
      > If its *without* then we have a privacy/rights problem that needs to be taken to the supreme court.

      SING IT!

      She's my FBI!
      Tappin my phone, FCC's surprised,
      FCC make the VOIP lines die,
      Sweet FBI!

      But seriously, what do 80s hair metal bands [warrantweb.net] have to do with it?

    • Re:With or Without a Warrant? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Not quite true.

      There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the government to compell a person to testify against themselves. That includes providing encyption keys.

      If the a policeman can prove to a judge that a search is needed, they can search. There is nothing in our Constitution that says that search must be successful, and much that says individuals have the absolute right to deny success by denying information.

      Yet another reason our government is a cancer on the Constitution.
    • The problem is that the backdoor will exists whether the FBI is using it or not. Even if the FBI can only use it when it has a valid wiretap warrant, every user of the system is more vulnerable then they need to be so that occasionally some users can be spied on. That's the real problem.

      Basically, the FBI is saying that it can't hack the encryption (or at least shouldn't have to). Basically, I don't think that we should have to trust that the government will use this power only for good. There is always
    • Of course, the irony of all this is that even if you don't encrypt your conversations electronically, you don't have to speak in the clear. I mean, suppose a terrorist leader wanted to tell one of his subordinates to do something that they would rather nobody else knew about. A few simple prearranged signals are all they would need:

      Habib: Hello? Hello? This is Mr. Smith.

      Achmed: Good evening, Mr. Smith. This is Mr. Jones. The finger is in the apple pie, and the panties are blue. Again, the panties are
      • Actually, your example would be the worst possible way to do things, as the words and phrases are unusual enough to alert anybody listening that something is up.

        A far better way is to pick normal sounding expressions:

        Terrorist A: Hello?
        Terrorist B: Hey Joe! Me and the guys were going to go to the movies tonight?
        (translation: our terrorist cell has been activated - had the intent been to arrange a movie night the phrase "go to a show" would have been used)
        Terrorist A: OK, what and when?
        Terrorist B: That new
    • Do you mean that supreme court that has a new chief justice just sworn in today?

  • What rights on-line? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by denissmith ( 31123 ) * on Thursday September 29, 2005 @07:18PM (#13680748)
    I wonder how long the rule will survive the courts, since you could probably argue that a built in backdoor to communications was a violation of the fourth amendment. It is a blanket warrantless search on everyone, whether they execute an actual search or not. Yet courts have allowed roadblocks to test for drunk driving ( which is the conceptually the same ) and they allow random bag searches it the Port Authority and the airports. All of these are really fourth amendment violations. Some day a court will probably swing the other way and forbid them ( would that make them liberal or conservative ? Bonus points for the correct answer! ), but for now the paranoids rule. I suppose the key question is what will they do to police the situation, If A sends B an encrypted packet, and A and B are using a well known port ( 22, say) and the packet crosses D's network, is D responsible for insuring that the packet is compliant? How is D to know? As long as A and B have access to an encryption software that has no backdoor I don't see how it matters whether Skype has a backdoor or not. Or is this a case where, as recently was reported, even owning encryption software of this type will be 'evidence of intent'?

    • Since I'm bored (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 )
      Depends on the way you are using liberal and conservative. People throw the terms around a lot and generally aren't using them in a well defined way.

      If you are using them to describe a situation of social permissivness, then it would be liberal. Liberal social laws would be ones where people have the most freedoms possible, whereas conservative ones would be the least freedoms possible.

      If you are suing them to describe legal changes, then conservative. A liberal view would be a progressive one, that laws sh
    • Pah, the Founding Fathers were a bunch of terrorist Commies. Good Americans do what they're told. Heck, Thomas Jefferson slept with a black woman. What kind of good American would do that? Guys like Maddison weren't even Christians. Americans should set out immediately to burn that heathen, anti-God Constitution and replace it with "God Wants You To Bow Down To The FBI".
    • even owning encryption software of this type will be 'evidence of intent'
      sounds worse than that.

      ... consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their
      choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.

      sounds like they are heading in a direction where using a program across state lines could be illegal. I'm conservative enought that I'm usualy considered a Nazi on /. and this seems like seriously spooky shit to me.

    • I wonder how long the rule will survive the courts

      Last week's Court or next week's Court?

      To phrase it in succinct Neocon: "Where does the Constitution talk about VoIP?"

      In our new conservatism, we don't want an "activist court" that writes in freedoms to technology the founding fathers wouldn't have envisoned, now do we? So in all such things, I assume we are now so screwed.

  • Two Things (Score:5, Funny)

    by Stanistani ( 808333 ) on Thursday September 29, 2005 @07:18PM (#13680750) Homepage Journal
    1) Is FBI over VOIP a new protocol?

    2) Very apropos quote at bottom of the page:
    "Increased knowledge will help you now. Have mate's phone bugged."

    3) I have trouble with limits.
  • As far as I know I can use any encryption methods I want for web pages, email, bit torrent etc...

    Why is VOIP different than other kinds of data? It is sent over the same medium.

  • It makes sense (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kwiqsilver ( 585008 )
    If the FBI can't spy on every single US resident 24/7, how can they be sure we're not all terrorists?
    :o

    Did they have the FBI PR guy give the "if you haven't done anything wrong, then you should have nothing to hide" defense yet?

    • Re:It makes sense (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Not_Wiggins ( 686627 )
      If the FBI can't spy on every single US resident 24/7, how can they be sure we're not all terrorists?

      Well, this is generally the extreme view on the whole privacy issue, which (unfortunately) makes your point impotent.

      If given the option would the FBI monitor all calls made by everyone in the US? That's absurd. There isn't enough man-power to do that. Even if you have computers monitoring calls, there'd still be enough data from that digested version to drown-out any effort.

      People's reaction to this
      • So instead of just wailing that "all access is bad access," wouldn't it be better to be focused on rules around "when and how that access can be obtained?"

        No. Without even getting into the fact that the FBI spends almost none of its time dealing with the three crimes the US government is Constitutionally allowed to investigate (counterfeiting, piracy, and treason), I would rather that they have to break encryption to listen in on phone calls. One of the "rules" they now have about wiretaps is that if the

  • What the fuck? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RLiegh ( 247921 ) * on Thursday September 29, 2005 @07:28PM (#13680796) Homepage Journal
    What is it going to take to get people to be so pissed off they're motivated to make the changes necessary to get our rights back?

    • What is it going to take to get people to be so pissed off they're motivated to make the changes necessary to get our rights back?

      Nothing. People are, by and large, subservient cowards who will stand by and let fellow citizens be abused, allow themselves to be frightened by power-hungry governments, and well, just bloody well do what they're told. The American Revolution was a long time ago, and nobody particular remembers or cares to remember what got those guys so up in arms. Nearly half of America

    • Re:What the fuck? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hesiod ( 111176 ) on Thursday September 29, 2005 @08:19PM (#13681085)
      > What is it going to take to get people to be so pissed off

      Paying attention and recognizing bullshit/corruption. And they need to quit thinking the enemy is "the other party," instead of the people in their own party that are taking advantage of them.
    • changes necessary to get our rights back?

      How? Vote for Clown A or Clown B in the next election? Print up flyers? Preach on soapboxes? Write our Congressmen? Telephone our Representative? Show up on the steps of the White House and protest?

      We've all been doing that for decades. Here's a sad truth: We do not have the Government for our adversary. We have for our adversary the 51% who cruise along in their cushy lives in blissful ignorance of anything wrong.

  • Irony (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    FTA: ...spokesman on Monday, who asked not to be identified by name...

    We have the right to know everything... We have the obligation to reveal Nothing.

    It's for your own good!

    (Your name is being added to a List)

    Don't worry about it....

  • When Skype was a European company, they could have just ignored this nonsense. Not any more. The problem is, Skype really needs encryption as it's peer-peer. It'll be interesting to see how eBay deal with it.

  • Can someone please explain to me exactly WHEN the FCC became a law-creation body?

    I can't honestly believe that Congress would outsource THAT

  • Bad apples (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rufey ( 683902 ) on Thursday September 29, 2005 @07:47PM (#13680893)
    Part of the issue is that there are people who do bad things out there. And when bad things happen (Oklahoma City, 9/11, murder, kidnapping) people begin to ask why law enforcement wasn't able to stop the bad people before the bad thing happened.

    I think that many of the laws that are put in place because of this are really overreaching, but on the other hand, if you were doing something illegal and found out that, starting the next day your phone was going to be tapped, you were going to be followed, and your every move was going to be scrutinized because law enforcement *thought* that you were doing someting illegal, you would most likely, overnight, come up with a game plan to make it look like you were just an ordinary law abiding citizen.

    Sure there are people who abuse their power, and that is where the problem lies - it isn't necessarily with the law itself, its with the people who enforce the law thats the problem.

    We in the US battle over whether its constitutional to have "under god" in the pledge of allegiance and whether "free speach" really means free speach.

    Another analogy - corporations will (well, okay, they should) put a lot of time and effort into network security because it only takes one person on the inside, who has inside knowledge, to steal company data (whether it be customer data such as SSNs and credit card info or other confidential data). If everyone were trustworthy, there would be no need for network monitoring for threats. Likewise, if everyone were trustworthy and always obeyed the law and never did anything illegal, we wouldn't have all of these laws that dictate basically that we have no privacy anymore.

    The problem is, how do you know before something bad happens who the bad people are?

  • so the FBI can contact me and demand i provide them the ability to tap my VoIP communications. well, cool! sure, FBI, just let me know when you'd like to start listening and i'll open up the tap point, then close it when you're done. and wait 'till after to have all the interesting conversations.

    (yes, i know that's not really what it's about, but it's how all the summaries read)

  • And in news to hand ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ignavus ( 213578 ) on Thursday September 29, 2005 @07:50PM (#13680911)
    And in news to hand, the FBI wants to ban talking over backyard fences with the neighbors.

    "We cannot bug all the backyard fences in America, so we'll just have to outlaw talking to the neighbors that way. Only authorised communication over interceptable devices can be permitted in a free society."

    Fortunately, sociologists have confirmed that the universal failure of American couples to communicate, or even talk, during sex means that procreative activity will not have to be banned as well. The CIA confirmed that terrorists do their murderous acts because they are prevented from looking at wholesome bikini-clad girls - those secretive burqas hiding the female form are the true cause of extremism. "This is why our army in Iraq was trying to show the captured Iraqis that nakedness is good. I guess they just took it the wrong way", suggested an Army spokesperson.

    "Only a terrorist would want free speech", added an FBI agent. "Encrypted VOIP is like wearing a burqa to hide a bomb."

    And that's all the news (you're allowed to hear) from the Land of the Free.
  • What is their take on POTS encryption? What if you are using an encrypted phone on both ends - is that illegal?

    Does anyone know off the top of their heads?

    • Re:What about POTS encryption? (Score:4, Informative)

      by CodeBuster ( 516420 ) on Thursday September 29, 2005 @08:04PM (#13680989)
      The United States Government used the STU-III Secure Telephone System for unclassified but sensitive diplomatic communications with their embassies overseas during the 1980s. Bruce Schneier mentions this system in his book, "Applied Cryptography". The system involved special hardware at both ends (ie each person needed an STU-III phone w/a special key dongle) and was never generally available to the public. The key distribution was supposedly managed by the NSA.

  • Finally, the war on terror is won! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29, 2005 @07:51PM (#13680914)
    (Scene: A cave in Pakistan.)

    (Al Zawahri walks briskly into the cave where Osama Bin Laden is playing solitaire. Al is holding a printout from a CNet web page.)

    Al: Osama! Look what the infidels have done! We cannot encrypt the holy warrior communication as planned. We must allow the cursed FBI to listen to our blessed instructions. What shall we do??

    Osama: You make me sad this day. Allah has chosen to test us. Since we cannot possibly violate FCC regulation, we have no choice but to resort to manual couriers to communicate jihad instructions to our soldiers of freedom. Praise Allah, we will get our messages through.

    Al: But do you not remember our cost estimates? We can't find enough holy warriors to handle all of our communication. We used the money to install air conditioning in the cave. We are doomed.

    Osama: (After thinking). We have no choice but to shut down our operations once and for all. Curse the FBI and their unholy ways! Our jihad is over. (Raises fist in the air). Curse you George Bush! Curse you!

    (Osama and Al pull off their robes and fake beards and put on business suits. Osama holds up a stuffed elephant and holds it up.)

    Osama: They may have won the War On Terror with their infernal FCC regulations, but they will lose the War on Cheap Toy Imports! In America, big business is never regulated!

    Al: Allah has shown us the way!

  • Pinch me - I'm dreaming!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Linker3000 ( 626634 ) on Thursday September 29, 2005 @07:51PM (#13680915) Journal
    Slashdot EeziPost (TM) MK 1.0.001 (beta) TRIFECTA SOUVENIR EDITION

    #NB: For obvious reasons, the first option is ENABLED by default - remember to turn off if you are NOT responding to a dupe

    [X] Another: [X] Dupe [ ] Slashvertisment [X] WTF [X] $editor is a dork [X] dupe trifecta is now in operation

    [ ] Frist psot [ ] $link_to_GNAA [ ] $link_to_goatse [ ] $random_drivel

    [ ] I Haven't RTFA, but... $random_opinionated_comment

    [ ] Slashdotted already!. I bet their server runs on $topic_item too

    [ ] Soul_sucking registration required

    [ ] Mod Parent [ ] up [ ] Down

    [ ] Fsck: [ ] SCO [ ] Micro$oft [ ] DMCA [ ] DRM [ ] MPAA [ ] RIAA [ ] Google [ ] Bush [ ] You all

    [ ] I for one welcome our new $topic_item overlords

    [ ] Imagine a beowulf cluster of those

    [ ] In Soviet Russia, $topic_item owns you!

    [X] Meh!

    [ ] You must be new here!

    [ ] Netcraft confirms $topic_item is: [ ] dead [ ] dying

    [ ] But have the inventors thought of what will happen if $random_amateur_insight

    [ ] Once again the USA is clamping down on my [ ] Amendment rights.

    [ ] You insensitive clod

    [ ] But people who download music from P2P networks are more likely to buy the
    album

    [ ] Cue DVD Jon-type crack in 3..2..1

    [ ] Torrent, anyone?

    [ ] Here's a link to a patch: $random_linux_distro_url

    [ ] "Yeah, but does it run Linux?"; if($summary has 'linux') add "Oh, wait..."

    [ ] Profit!!

    [ ] Tinfoil hat at the ready

    [ ] Still no cure for cancer

    [ ] "()*%£^" No Carrier
    • LOL - OK, you're Scott Adams in disguise, right?

      Usable, but clumsy. Now, a PHP app that auto-generates a Slashdot reply to cut-n-paste would go well here. The unselected options in this form would clutter up the post.

  • I'll say it again, there already exists a backdoor, its called a warrant. Issue me one, and I'll be happy to let them listen. Until then you aint getting my keys. What happened to my presumed innocence?
  • "trusted computing" will put a keystroke logger in every BIOS!

    Really, they can go in your house when you are not at home and leave no sign they were there, without any reason or warrant ("Patriot" Act)
    Do you really think they will not leave a key stroke logger?
  • they are focusing in on encrypted stuff... as encryption must mean terrorist... to those who have done so many others wrong...and expect revenge...

  • Tinfoil hat.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Coldglow ( 846952 ) on Thursday September 29, 2005 @08:24PM (#13681100)
    No more tinfoil hats... Only paper hats, it is for national security!!!!!!!!!

  • consider the source (Score:3, Insightful)

    by idlake ( 850372 ) on Thursday September 29, 2005 @08:31PM (#13681126)
    If you have followed him, you'll see that to Declan McCullagh, anything the government does is wrong; that's just his view of the world.

    So far, there is not even the slightest indication that the FCC either has the authority or the ability of regulating what you do on your PC. So, while the FCC may really intend something stupid with this rule, it probably doesn't matter; they might as well try to make and enforce FCC regulations against radio emissions from the sun.
    • Exactly. The FCC cannot overrule the fifth amendment of the Constitution which states, in part:

      "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...."

      Yes, they're proposing (and presently seeking comment) requiring VOIP providers with links to POTS lines to permit tapping of calls just as the landline folks do, but they're using the POTS interface as a separator between "big companies" and "little guys" and the little guys won't be required to comply. (At least that's wh
  • Remember when they teach you that "we hold these truths to be self-evident" and that "endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."? They often seem to neglect the part about dissolving political bonds in favor of new ones or the fact that the ruler derives his or her power from the consent of the governed. I'm all against "terrorists", but how about we take some real action against them instead of stupid shit, like keeping VoIP from using encrypt

  • WHY SO COMPLICATED? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hurfy ( 735314 ) on Thursday September 29, 2005 @08:48PM (#13681218)
    If my kids string two cans together do they have to provide a third for any FBI agents nearby?

    Perhaps i should get an extra baby monitor for the FBI office, he seems to be sending me coded messages :)

    If they really need a tap can't they just break in and put a bug in the handset or something? It wouldn't seem to matter what protocol it uses then. Don't they have like a 99+% chance of approval for a warrent if they ask? Of course i guess it would be much easier to have someone else do the legwork and listen to the tape at their convenience.

    Why would the REALLY bad guys care if their comm program is approved? Make this a capital offense maybe so they would rather be busted for bombmaking?

    The boys in DC bored this week or what?

    Can you say: Power Trip?

  • Doesn't anybody see... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Thursday September 29, 2005 @08:55PM (#13681259) Homepage
    ...that there is real legitimate problem here if the police after recieving the proper warrants, can't understand anything because it's all encrypted?

    What can you do:
    1) Completely prevent the police from listening in on communication, which would probably have severe consequences for law enforcement?
    2) Demand that users hand over their own encryption keys, thus informing them that they are under surveilance?
    3) Demand that software adds a backdoor for police, with all the problems of jurisdiction and possiblities of abuse?
    4) Demand that software adds a backdoor for themselves, so they can hand it over to the police? Even bigger possibilities for abuse.
    5) Some sort of two-part system where session keys are kept in escrow. For example the police has the decryption key, the company the encrypted keys. Requires some for for central server to hodl the keys.
    6) Outlaw encryption. Read: Impossible.

    3), 4) and 5) don't work with OSS solutions. 5) doesn't work with a completely decentralized structure, maybe something like Skype can use it negotiating keys but not with software connecting peers directly. Also, this isn't new to VoIP, they have just a big problem finding out if someone trades kiddie porn over SFTP as they do with someone talking to their drug dealer using VoIP.

    Kjella
    • 7) The police actually have to do their job, which may involve installing bugs.
    • 7> Paint a laser on the office window of the person you want to bug, and listen to their voice before it ever hits the hardware.

      Of course you're still screwed if the people involved are talking Klingon or Tolkenese or something :)
  • Just like any other encryption, if you make it illegal in the states, then it will just get produced somewhere else. At on point during the PGP debacle, Scott McNealy said something along the lines of 'Oh we don't buy encryption products from the US, we buy them from Russia as Russian encryption is much better. After all, these are trade secrets we're talking about'

    Unless the US implements a 'great firewall', this will never work for catching people that really don't want to be caught.
  • And Carnivore did something good for the goverment? If it did, it taught them that using buckets to stop the tide from coming in was not a good idea.... let them listen, tin-foil-hats be damned. I dare them to analyze all my phone conversations! Go ahead, listen, analyze, process the bits of data that are my conversations with my wife! FOOOLS!!!

    I will damn any government representative that wants to spend my tax dollars building super-clusters to monitor my voice conversations... Besides that, they don't ha

  • Which is from the totalitarian regime? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by paiute ( 550198 ) on Thursday September 29, 2005 @09:39PM (#13681503)
    "The exercise by citizens ... of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state"

    "consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement"

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Close