Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Court Battle Over Internet Calls 134

Posted by samzenpus from the tap-out dept.
koweja writes "The federal appeals court has is hearing a petition to overturn an FCC rule that extends current wire-tapping laws to cover VoIP calls. The petition comes from various privacy advocacy groups, including the Center for Democracy and Technology. Aside from the obvious privacy issues, the rule requires that providers use equipment that allows wiretaps, which would require many companies to "upgrade" in order to comply."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court Battle Over Internet Calls More

Court Battle Over Internet Calls

Comments Filter:

  • But why... (Score:5, Funny)

    by confusion ( 14388 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @08:14PM (#13885914) Homepage
    ...should those using VOIP be exempt from the abuses of governmental powers that the rest of us must endure?

    Jerry
    http://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org]

    • Re:But why... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ornil ( 33732 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @08:57PM (#13886132)
      Don't laugh, it's a good question. If the wiretapping law is good it should apply to all. If it's bad, go lobby and vote to change it. Making exception for VOIP makes no sense.

      • Re:But why... (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Should an individual have the legal right to secretly break into another individual's computer or phone network and conduct a search or seizure of data? Does an individual have a moral right to do such a thing?

        If not, then exactly what moral justification does an individual use to delegate that "right" to government? Does the process of democracy legitimize that "right"?

        Should government be allowed to enter and search your home without your permission, and without your knowledge? Without a court order? Why
        • Should an individual have the legal right to secretly break into another individual's computer or phone network and conduct a search or seizure of data? Does an individual have a moral right to do such a thing?

          In an anarchist "natural rights" sense, yes, the individual has the right to do whatever he needs to do to protect himself. Even if that means searching your home. Absent a government or court system, what is the moral difference between him searching your home with or without your knowledge?

          If not,
      • As a wedge: to break and finally remove the existing wiretapping laws. They should not exist, but voting is FAR too blunt an instrument to remove them. The best way to make a bad law go away is to break it.

        As an example, VOIP is a pointer to a wider fact: communication is fungible, because bits are fungible. The only way to wiretap every conversation, is to wiretap every packet and datum on the inernet. Further, there are no longer any "marginal" loopholes. A loophole which can be automated, can be adopted
        • Hmm, if your monitoring traffic at the switch levels you can specify which ports you want to monitor. You don't need to turn it all on. You need the capability to monitor any communication but that does not let you monitor every communication. Think of it this way you have a 1GB switch that has a 3GB back plate now if it's setup with one monitoring port and the back plate is sending 2GB of data your stuck with 1/2 the data even though you could monitor any port does not mean you can monitor every port.

    • Re:But why... (Score:5, Informative)

      by projectVORTEX ( 872563 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @09:29PM (#13886282)
      Part of the problem, as I have been reading about it, isn't so much the wiretapping law but a particular part of the law. The part of the law in question would require ALL VOIP operators to completely rewire their systems in order to be in compliance with the law. There are easier ways to go about doing this, but those ways were not addressed in the law. Now, as a Vonage customer, I would hate for Vonage to have to send me the bill so they are in compliance with FCC wiretapping regulations. On the other end of the spectrum, there is another issue at hand. This quote is taken from a Yahoo News article on the same subject: "By adopting the VoIP wiretapping rule, the FCC backtracked on an earlier decision to treat computer-to-computer VoIP much like it treats other Internet-related communication, as an unregulated information service, the groups said. The FCC overstepped limits in the CALEA law exempting information services, and federal law enforcement agencies have not shown they need additional help to intercept online communications, said John Morris, staff counsel for the CDT." (Taken from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20051025/tc_pcworl d/123204 [yahoo.com]) There you have it. In fact, the Yahoo article puts things in a better light than the CNN article does, because the Yahoo article also mentions potential problems down the line with integration of wiretapping capabilities into what is essentially IP technology.
    • I have Vonage so I guess I can continue my marijuana growing operation. Just kidding.

  • Skype (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mboverload ( 657893 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @08:14PM (#13885916) Journal
    With a system like Skype, which uses P2P for calls, how would this work?

    I'm kind of ok with wiretapping, just as long as there ISN'T A BACKDOOR. I don't care what they say, a backdoor into anything is a bad idea.

    • Re:Skype (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      skype would need to route all data through skype servers
      in order to satisfy (from what i understand) the requirement
      that two parties can't detect when they're being tapped
      (i.e. if calls went P2P when not tapped, but through skype
      when tapped, you'd be able to tell).

      that is, all media would have to go through skype servers.

      • Not true. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        route all data through skype servers

        Not true. The secret services can already tap your internet packets. What they need is Skype providing the key to your P2P encryption.

    • Re:Skype (Score:4, Interesting)

      by chill ( 34294 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @08:44PM (#13886068) Journal
      IIRC, the wiretap provisions only apply to VoIP POTS interconnects. Straight VoIP VoIP isn't covered by this, only where they interact with the regular phone system. Thus Skype Skype isn't covered, but SkypeOut *IS*.

      None-the-less, odd are the courts will rule the FCC doesn't have the authority to enforce this. Even the FCC members who voted for this stated that it was on some convoluted, shakey logic.

        -Charles

      • Re:Skype (Score:5, Informative)

        by Wesley Felter ( 138342 ) <wesley@felter.org> on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @08:50PM (#13886091) Homepage
        The rule is that if any part of the system (Skype) touches the PSTN, then every call (e.g. Skype-to-Skype) must be tappable. It sounds like this would totally sabotage Skype, FWD, Gizmo, SIPPhone, etc.
        • Unless of course, the voice gateways into the PSTN could scramble the analog voice and then descramble on its way back into the IP network. But that would cost a bit more I presume... maybe illegal?
        • what if the only pstn interconnects are outside the usa?
        • The rule is that if any part of the system (Skype) touches the PSTN, then every call (e.g. Skype-to-Skype) must be tappable. It sounds like this would totally sabotage Skype, FWD, Gizmo, SIPPhone, etc.

          that's the entire point... it's the incumbent POTS operators doing their damndest to "compliance" the newcomers out of the picture.

      • Check out Pulver.com (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jesup ( 8690 ) *
        Correct. The ruling also covers any broadband over 200Kbps separately - i.e. they can force your ISP to tap your connection. The act really is about forcing the ISPs to install equipment to make it EASY to tap by flipping a switch electronically - they already had the power to order a tap; it's just that it might be hard/slow/impossible for the ISP to comply. And yes, this means there's a HUGE gaping hole waiting for someone to exploit. Knowing the capability is there is 1/2 the battle of accessing it,

        • Re:Check out Pulver.com (Score:3, Insightful)

          by chill ( 34294 )
          Thinking about it, this may be a *good* thing. Soon, damn near everything will be encrypted traffic. No, I don't mean Skype and its proprietary stuff. I mean tunnel EVERYTHING thru TLS/SSL. Let 'em tap that and have a blast.

            -Charles
          • And what's the other end of your tunnel? If it's a VoIP call, the call setup goes through the VoIP provider, and they're required to not only make the packets available, but also to provide any keys/etc needed to decode it. They're also required to make it impossible for the target to know they're being tapped. This means they can't set up point-to-point IP calls - they'll have to route all calls through RTP proxies, tapped or not. This is a very BAD thing for call quality due to delay.

            BTW, you don't wa
            • From the CALEA FAQ: (http://www.askcalea.com/jper.html#fcc [askcalea.com])

              Q: Would the petition force carriers to decode data that might be encrypted?

              A: No. The petition does not raise the issue of encryption. That issue is already addressed by CALEA. The statute states that if encryption is provided by a telecommunications carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication, it must decrypt the communications subject to an order for lawful interception. But if the encryption is provid

          • Thinking about it, this may be a *good* thing. Soon, damn near everything will be encrypted traffic. No, I don't mean Skype and its proprietary stuff. I mean tunnel EVERYTHING thru TLS/SSL. Let 'em tap that and have a blast.

            If they are insisting the ISPs pay thir own money to upgrade to more-easily tappable equipment, then when everyone encrypts everything, they will make it illegal to use crypto in the US for which they don't have the s3cr37 b4ckd00r.

            Failure to comply with that will be a crime since you'd

      • When you consider that VoIP to PSTN connections are nothing but last mile technologies it then becomes a piece of cake to tap a line. Vonage comes to mind on this one.

        In essence the Vonage's out there said that they didn't need UNE's - all they needed was a partnering agreement with some CLEC's and a reasonably fat pipe to said CLEC. Digital switches have long been capable of using IP to route calls so this was a no brainer.

        That being said it's VERY easy to tap a line from a digital central office. So
    • Good point.

      Incidentally, does anyone know if wiretapping will be extended to AIM based voice chats? If VOIP, than why not iChat? Matter of fact, why not AIM, and email too?

      --Petey
      • And what about headset chat in Halo2 on Microsoft XBox Live?
        Seriously, why would it be exempt?

        In fact, suppose I'm blind and have a text-to-speech webbrowser, with speech recog for input. That makes Slashdot a VOIP provider (since I can hear your posts), and subject to wiretapping!

    • Are you aware? (Score:3, Informative)

      by horacerumpole ( 877156 )
      Are you aware that backdoors in form of boxes connected to all exchanges already exists in practically every country in the world?

      I used to work for a subsidary of Comverse ( Nasdaq:CMVT [google.com]) which was wholly built around providing the wiretapping boxes to law enforcement agencies around the world (complete with automatic speaker recognition, automatic voice to text, data analysis (i.e. extracting that HTML page out of anything from radio modems to ATM VC's and beyond), voice enhancements, and lots of other ne

    • The secure real time protocol, with MIKEY key exchange, can use Diffie-Hellman key generation. This standard is already available on some hardware sip phones, and the government can't stop you from using it with software, like Minisip. Sorry Big Brother. You're fucked. And good thing too.

  • What good does it really do? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bchernicoff ( 788760 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @08:18PM (#13885936)
    After all, I could easily write an encrypted P2P voice chat program.
    I'm sure they already exist...

    • Re:What good does it really do? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mboverload ( 657893 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @08:22PM (#13885950) Journal
      Encrypted P2P VOIP you say?

      It's called Skype. Welcome to The Future.
      • Skype is closed source, requires a central server, and touches the PSTN. The combination of these make it easy and legal to include the wiretapping provisions.

        (hint for a real solution: IPSec [wikipedia.org], H.323 [wikipedia.org])
        • What's your point? The GP said he could create an encrypted P2P voice chat. The responder said yes, that exists, it's skype. At what point did it become relevant that Skype is closed source?
          • The part where the article was about wiretap law. An open source program can be verified by the user.
            • If there's a law that all voip must be wire tappable, how are you going to use a program that isn't wire tappable legally? Why would it matter if it was open source?

              And, have you ever, ever, actually read through the source code of a program you were using to verify that it was secure enough for you? Are you up on every recent encryption technique? An open source program could be verified by an advanced programmer with a lot of domain knowledge of encryption. Not by 'the user'. That's a total fallacy.

              • If there's a law that all voip must be wire tappable, how are you going to use a program that isn't wire tappable legally?

                By being in a jurisdiction that does not require this, even if the VOIP company is, and by using a VOIP system that does not touch the PSTN, which is what makes VOIP wiretapable by this law.

                Or by not using it legally.

                Why would it matter if it was open source?

                An open source system could be used to build private VOIP systems for your law firm, accountancy, election campaign, or WHY, t

      • Skype is nothing, because nobody outside the company knows how the key exchange works. And you can't trust something you don't understand.

        Skype will either adopt standards, or they will be a faint memory in ten years. Ok, maybe they'll get really, really lucky and be remembered as pioneers. But they'll still be obsolete junk. Anything less than openpgp is unacceptable.

    • Re:What good does it really do? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What good does it really do? It's a moral standing, for one. Sort of like asking What Good the GPL does when things could be released under no license whatsoever, or... y'know, et cetera.

      There may have been other ways to accomplish protection from VoIP wiretapping, but isn't it nice to not have to at all?
    • habib_freedom_hater01> aziz, are you ready lol
      sxy_bch_1955> hi ;) @}-'-`---
      habib_freedom_hater01> AZIZ!!! stop goofin we must destroy teh invidels
      sxy_bch_1955> ROFLMAO! OMG habib, d00d, this is so l33ts
      habib_freedom_hater01> tahts it aziz im goin to call u
      sxy_bch_1955> LOL u cant tehy tapped r phone! we only use chat now
      habib_freedom_hater01> roxors!
      sxy_bch_1955> u set us up teh bomb
      habib_freedom_hater01> move zig!
      sxy_bch_1955> LOL
      • Of course, IRC isn't actually encrypted (you can SSL connect to the server, but no end-end encryption), nor are any other of the big chat networks like yahoo, msn etc. There are solutions/plug-ins running on top to make it encrypted though, plus various minor services. Overall, not a problem to use for someone that wants to.
    • Yeah, they do, and they don't touch the regular telephone network so they're not affected by this clause. Otherwise we'd have to tap everything from AIM to Xbox Live.

  • Same issues North and South of the border (Score:5, Informative)

    by Funakoshi ( 925826 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @08:25PM (#13885962)
    Canada has run into a similar issue with our government's demand for greater wiretaps for phone, email and Internet communications. (From a few weeks ago.)

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew s/20051011/wiretapping_051011/20051011?hub=TopStor ies [www.ctv.ca]

    It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the public debate forum over "our nation's safety and security," or privacy.

    • It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the public debate forum over "our nation's safety and security," or privacy.

      No it wont be interesting to see how it turns out. This is because "safety and security" (and all the BS associated) wins out over privacy, the interests of the citizen, or just plan common sense, any day.

  • Oh beaurocrats, you so crazy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustADude ( 895491 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @08:26PM (#13885966)
    I feel safer already. Bob Terrorist can send coded messages just about any way he wants to get around this (the apocryphal "coded eBay auction" stories, PGP or any number of other encryption standards, smoke signals, fucking microfiche under a stamp), but the feds can listen to mom swapping corn muffin recipes. Anyone else get the feeling the only "terrorists" caught this way will be the ones too stupid to have really caused any damage to begin with?

    The world is once again safe for democracy.

    Cheers.

    • Just like with most seemingly dubious security features, it's about making it hard enough to prevent 95% of the potential perps. This is not really about terrorists, probably, since, as you said, there are extremely covert ways to transfer information. Most of us have surprisingly "flexible" morals, if the crime looks easy enough to get away with; so the idea is to scare an average person and make them think twice before doing stupid things. If only that could be enough...
    • Why is it always about "Bob" Thanks guys!
    • Remember, criminals aren't any smarter than the rest of us. Actually, since practically all of us do something illegal, we're probably just about all criminals here, but I'm talking about "hardened" criminals or something I guess. Cops bust people all the time based on phone tap evidence, because they are dumb enough to talk about criminal activity on the phone.
    • I feel safer already. Bob Terrorist can send coded messages just about any way he wants to get around this (the apocryphal "coded eBay auction" stories, PGP or any number of other encryption standards, smoke signals, fucking microfiche under a stamp

      KISS. Keep it simple, stupid. Bob doen't want to be seen carrying a one-time pad, a sack full of cell-phones, or a James Bond gadget.

      Where encryption is little used, encryption draws attention.

    • Anyone else get the feeling the only "terrorists" caught this way will be the ones too stupid to have really caused any damage to begin with?

      You mean like those using regular phones? Here's a little known secret: Most people get caught because they missed something. And I don't mean just computer stufff. One person might be ignorant about that, another about cell phones and tracking, a third about electronic traces (like using your credit card), a fourth about DNA and a fifth about security cameras and the
    • OK, fine, but that doesn't mean that VOIP shouldn't be wiretappable. Perhaps all those other methods should be monitored as well, perhaps not. But if you make it clear that VOIP can't be wiretapped, then even the smart terrorists you do fear will just use VOIP.

      Besides that, wiretapping is used much more for criminal investigations, listening in to organised crime and whatnot. And it makes some sense to put such provisions in place now, before VOIP becomes commonplace and it's much harder to retrofit the who

  • They created it, now they have to deal with it (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @08:29PM (#13885979)
    The feds created the internet, and now they have to deal with the implications. They aren't happy about it. Sure, they could use wiretapping on known VOIP services, but what's to stop someone from programming their own, using strong encryption. Sending sound packets over a network isn't that hard, encrypting them is also easy. Maybe you wouldn't have a super robust network, but so long as the person on the other end is getting the message, then that should be OK. Why aren't more criminals using PGP encrypted email? It seems like at this point it would be pretty obvious to them that they get caught when stuff isn't encrypted.

    • Re:They created it, now they have to deal with it (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bluelip ( 123578 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @08:52PM (#13886100) Homepage Journal
      You're very correct. (If it possible to more correct than just normally correct)

      VOIP can be tunnled to that it loooks like any other encrypted traffic. Are the feds going to start block :443 traffic because I may be tunneling my weekly call to my mom in the traffic?

      I work for a state agencey. I've spent the betterm part of days explainging to the higher ups what a certain technology can do and what it can't.

      Has anyone been pondering a way to provide politicians w/ this infornmation?

      I'm not trying to flame the gov't, just trying to find a way to get them unbiased technoligically corrext info.

      I realize that headlines sell and flinging mud wins campaigns. I'm probably too disillusioned to think can't be corrected.

      Any ideas out there?

      • VOIP can be tunnled to that it loooks like any other encrypted traffic. Are the feds going to start block :443 traffic because I may be tunneling my weekly call to my mom in the traffic?

        And thats where traffic analysis comes in. Port 443 traffic usually consists of a lot of individual connections that remain open for a few seconds at most, with fairly significant breaks between page fetches. When your encypted VoIP session uses that port, its going to be either one continuous connection, or a lot of c

        • Don't underestimate your ability to miss the point.

          W/ the spy conversations going on, it was more obvious that traffic clandestine. When running voip encypted, it's not so obvious. Yes, your uber-cool traffic analysis will show streams more than chunks. So? I could be streaming audio/video. It all about creating a plausible 'excuse'. If the service providers start blocking encrypted streams, they're bound to kill legitimate traffic also. Customers will complain and you can take it from there.
          • Once one of the parties is known, the cat's out of the bag. If a known terrorist is exchanging a bunch of encrypted VoIP (or a bunch of anything) with Joe and Bob, then we can guess that Joe and Bob are accomplices. Based on information we can gather about Joe and Bob (Joe is a pilot and Bob makes bombs) we can even begin to guess at the plan. Oh, look, Bob just took a trip to Sudan, maybe we should have customs stop him on the way back and check his luggage. Look, they found bomb making supplies!

            Traff
        • You can tell that information is being passed but it's very hard to tell what the information contains. The only reason that they could get information about the russian spys is because there was because they weren't using very good encryption algorithms. Same thing for the Germans in WW2. We now have at our disposal mathematically provable hard to break encryption. It's not the same as with the old methods. Now that we're using computers to do the encryption, its a lot harder to break the encryption.
          • Actually, the encryption used by Soviet agents in the post war period was the standard one time pad system, which is one of hte best methods out there even to this day. Yes, some traffic was broken into during a British project codenamed Venona, but this was due to the Soviets reusing onetime pads on two or more different channels which enabled crossmatching to happen. Venona however only ever broke into around 1% of encrypts captured, and even the vast majority of those were only broken to the tune of a
      • You're very correct. (If it possible to more correct than just normally correct)

        VOIP can be tunnled to that it loooks like any other encrypted traffic. Are the feds going to start block :443 traffic because I may be tunneling my weekly call to my mom in the traffic?

        I work for a state agencey. I've spent the betterm part of days explainging to the higher ups what a certain technology can do and what it can't.

        Has anyone been pondering a way to provide politicians w/ this infornmation?

        I'm not trying to flame t
    • BUZZER!! the feds didnt create the internet... it APRANET. until The government took over the internet. you should read the internet history. it explained everything, look it up in wikipedia.org
    • Why aren't more criminals using PGP encrypted email?

      You know the old adage:

      If encryption is nerdy, only nerds will have encryption.
    • Sure, they could use wiretapping on known VOIP services, but what's to stop someone from programming their own, using strong encryption.

      There's only one way to stop it: outlaw encryption. People found with encryption software will be arrested, and anyone whose TCP/IP data is opaque to random test-searches will have her PC seized and searched (for possible evidence of crypto).

      That is the inescapable implication of this wiretapping law: the law will be USELESS if encryption is widespread. Therefore, if the
  • I have finished this thread for you:

    >I hate the man. (Score: 5, Insightful)
    >>Yea but America always does this, and I don't like America. (Score:4, Interesting)
    >The Government is controlling too much stuff (Score: 4, Interesting)
    >>We can just have some private industry do it for us, then. (Score: 5, Insightful)
    >>>Why should we put up with this? (Score: 4, Interesting)
    >>>>I like to use my voip (Score 5, Interesting)
    >>>>>I can't wait to pay more taxes (Scor

  • Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @08:37PM (#13886028)
    Im the senior architect for a major VoIP provider. Supporting Lawful intercept is just like e911, its trivial to do. Its how well you do it that makes it hard. Good networks (in terms of business logic, closely comparable with pstn networks etc) will accept calls at an edge device, and then proxy them through their network. This however has a cost as transporting sip+rtp == bandwidth. In this scenario, wiretapping is really really easy, but it has a cost associated with it. Skype on the other hand basically steals, by comparison, its bandwidth and does end-to-end connections. In essence its a fancy directory service with interconnects to the pstn. This has a lot of other implications from 911 to privacy. Some are good. Eg on skype no one working at skype can tap your calls (unless they include it in their soft client, and havnt done so yet to my knowledge). However, every isp inbetween can, with varying degrees of difficulty (encryption et all). The question comes down to, who do you trust to do fair and balanced intercept, because its going to happen somewhere. Is it your isp under supeona, or is it the voip carrier who does it all day long. /. 'rs often complain about cease and decist letters, next thing it'll be wiretap letters and they'll comply just as fast. So be careful what you wish for. This society will not give up the ability to combat crime through selective, targeted, electronic monitoring. In fact in the last few years with commander kuku bananas in charge theyve made it even more prevailent. The fact of the matter is skype got kicked outta china, because their tech doesnt support lawful intercept, while others are getting licensed. Something for nothing just isnt gonna happen for the masses in telecom, theres too many special interest groups. You'll see gun control first; mark my words. If the VoIP community fights lawful intercept, E-911, privacy laws et all, and the internet community supports them. The special interests will do in the us as they have done in china, and just firewall the whole freakin country. Dont think it can't/wont happen here.
    • Supporting Lawful intercept is just like e911, its trivial to do. Good networks (in terms of business logic, closely comparable with pstn networks etc) will accept calls at an edge device, and then proxy them through their network. This however has a cost as transporting sip+rtp == bandwidth.

      Translation: If your VoIP network is so inefficient and expensive that it offers no advantage over the PSTN, CALEA compliance is easy. But then why even build it in the first place?
    • Can't firewall encrypted traffic on some arbitrary port.

    • In fact in the last few years with commander kuku bananas in charge theyve made it even more prevailent.

      In other news...
      George Bush received notice today from a GM that his World of Warcraft nickname violates Blizzard policy [slashdot.org]. We have been unable to reach the GM for comment.

      In possibly related news, black helicopters were seen hovering near a Blizzard facility, and later a private Gulfstream jet registered to Premier Executive Transport Services [thememoryblog.org] was seen departing for for Egypt [cbsnews.com].

    • This society will not give up the ability to combat crime through selective, targeted, electronic monitoring.

      I don't believe you. But more importantly, I know that society doesn't have a say in it, because society (all 6 million of you fuckers) simply doesn't have the power. The day is coming that I am going to "call" people by running software that

      • finds them through a Jabber server
      • downloads their openpgp key if I don't already have it
      • shows me how much I can trust the authenticity of that openpgp ke
      • all 6 million of you fuckers
        s/million/billion

        What can I say, I'm drunk.

      • "Hi mom. I have this great new way for you to call me. First, you find me through a Jabber server. What's Jabber? It's a services-based messaging hub that can locate me wherever I happen to be. No, I'm not running from the law, I just don't sit around in the same place all day. Yes, I still have my cellphone, but ... well.. you'll see why I want you to use this new way in a moment. Then you download my openpgp key. Open my front door? No, not that kind of key. An openpgp key! Openpgp? It's a cry

  • upgrade (Score:2, Insightful)

    by akhomerun ( 893103 )
    i'm thinking about the upgrades you would need to do to enable your VoIP phone to be wiretapped. wouldn't that require you to basically set up a wiretap yourself?

    i'm glad that the appeal is being pushed through, because when new communications standards are made, new rules for them need to be made. you can't recycle postage rules for email, just like you can't recycle telephone rules for broadband phones. you have to make new ones. there shouldn't be a rule that governs a new standard until our politici

  • No Problem, I'll Just Encrypt It! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mr_stinky_britches ( 926212 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @08:50PM (#13886086) Homepage Journal
    http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68306, 00.html [wired.com]
    wired has a good article on an open source project for an encrypted voip application.
    let's see them wiretap that ;)
    • "He won't elaborate on how his system works but is preparing a protocol document that will describe it in detail, which he'll post on the internet when the program is ready."

      ...

      "It's designed for a Mac, but will be adapted for PCs before Zimmermann makes it available for download. He's looking for investors to back a startup company that will support the product and oversee its distribution."

      Tell me where it says that the program will be open source. (No ... seriously ... if it actually is in the articl

    • Almost 10 years ago a ham buddy and me did encrypted voice over landline using our 24K modems. We both had two Soundblaster cards, to allow full duplex, and a program we found on a BBS. We yakked for over an hour as we simply enjoyed the conversation and thought of the potential. We didn't do it again because it was a kluge and simply for fun. The Blowfish algorithm it used was claimed to be very secure but we were primarily trying the digital voice potential. I'd think that at this time if we tried it
  • Considering the amount of overhead that would be required to encrypt and decrypt a constant data stream such as VoIP, it seems to me that you'd have pretty bad performance problems.
  • once again the gov. interferes with the ever growing technology race.
    DVD's, MP3's now phone calls.

    Maybe if they start looking at problems as a whole rather than putting old
    laws onto new ideas....

    makes me angry i tells ya!

  • A quick read between the lines (Score:4, Insightful)

    by laughingcoyote ( 762272 ) <barghesthowl@eUM ... .com minus punct> on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @09:10PM (#13886189) Journal

    Here's the major problem I see here. For the FBI to wiretap, they must have probable cause and a warrant. With such probable cause/warrant, they can do any number of things, from subpoenaing the suspect's ISP to placing surveillance devices right in the suspect's house. They've already got ways to eavesdrop if they follow the procedures they're required to follow.

    Now, if the FBI had this wiretap authority, they could in effect tap any call, anytime. They would still in theory be required to get a warrant in order to use the stuff in court, but they'd have the switch to flip on. And there's been a push in recent years by you-know-who to allow secret evidence in court proceedings that the suspect gets no opportunity to even view, let alone challenge.

    So, either law enforcement wants to be lazy, or they want an easier way to do an end-run around the rules. Neither way is a comforting thought to me.

    • Re:A quick read between the lines (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @10:00PM (#13886445) Journal
      Here's the major problem I see here. For the FBI to wiretap, they must have probable cause and a warrant.

      Uh, remember the (so-called) PATRIOT act? All that law enforcement needs to do is claim that you might be a terrorist and wiretap laws go out the window. Along with them, your privacy. They don't need to substantiate their "might be a terrorist" in any way, nor do they have to make that claim before doing the wiretap.

      It's just fucking hideous. Terrorists attack, and the US Govt immediately turns around and hands our defeat to the terrorists. If the terrorists want to attack our freedoms, then they have already had some pretty major successes!

      (and this is one of those few times where a little swearing is very appropriate)
      • Watch the shockumentary "Loose Change" and tell me again if you think terrorists attacked us, or if something more nefarious has occured.

        Let us not forget that our president was APPOINTED and not ELECTED. (Al Gore was elected...)

        I'll put it this way: If we can bomb Iraqi civillians numbering in the tens of thousands, what is to say that our government wouldn't crash some remote controlled airliners into the WTC and kill three to four thousand American civillians? Who stood to gain from that? Well, it's a ho

  • Because 9-11 could have been prevented with this (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @09:51PM (#13886399) Homepage
    The federal government has always failed to prevent things like this for two reasons: bureaucratic bullshit like fiefdoms in the middle of the CIA and FBI that don't like each other and petty politics. For the last 15 years the CIA lost most of its overseas operational assets, especially in its special operations commando units. These were the people who quietly "got the job done" behind a building with a silencer-equipped pistol or high-powered rifle. You never heard of it happening, except when it was abused like in Latin America.

    Here's a dirty little fact for the neoconservatives and the Bushitler wants to annihilate all non-born again Christians lunies. You cannot combine anti-terrorism units with law enforcement and you cannot expect things to be clean regardless of the solution. Yes, if we let the CIA quietly murder these terrorists without judicial oversight it could be abused. But it's a lesser evil than relying on the bumbling law enforcement apparatus in this country to do its job. The FBI spends as much time doing PR and lobbying as it does on enforcing the law; we really need to get a high barrier between a group like the CIA and everybody else and let that agency do its job in secrecy.

    Yes, let people outside the chain of command know what is happening, but don't let the spooks work with law enforcement unless the police are operating in a purely, unequivocably subordinate position so that they cannot lean on the spooks for more power and resources. What concerns me is precisely this beefing up of John Q. Cop's police powers, not the CIA and others being able to discretely beat up and kill people who want to rape, pillage and murder civilians of ANY nationality. I'd have no problem with the CIA torturing the hell out of, then executing some scumbag terrorist in Afghanistan or Iraq like Zarqawi who vascillates between blowing up our soldiers and innocent women and children.

    This stuff isn't going to get the job done, unless the job is to create a more effective police state. The real section to fear isn't a strong intelligence apparatus, but a law enforcement one whose resources and powers are almost instinguishable from the spooks. The spooks have, when allowed to do their job, much more to worry about than domestic issues. Be very afraid of this and increased efforts to force them to work together, especially when the FBI are jockying for the CIA's foreign intelligence role and the CIA wants to keep its turf. Nothing good can come out of it, and the most probable motive for making the police so powerful is precisely to squash domestic trouble and not of the terrorist variety.

    Think RICO and Operation Rescue if you need a starting point on how these special police powers tend to show their true, ugly purpose once they're firmly established in the law so that no lawyer can imagine living without them to "protect us."

  • Why we live in Ameriaca (Score:3, Insightful)

    by max born ( 739948 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2005 @09:59PM (#13886442)
    Justice Department spokesman Paul Bresson says court-authorized electronic surveillance is a critical law enforcement tool. "As communications technologies develop, we must ensure that such progress does not come at the expense of our nation's safety and security," he said.

    You know, I hate to use such a corny mantra that if we allow this then the terrrorists have won. But really, this is exactly what's going on here. Look at the last words in the quote: safety and security

    I can't help but think it's not really about that at all. The Feds, having been unable to connect the dots of 911 now want to make up for lost time with the ability to monitor every Internet conversation and what they don't realize is this will have no effect on organizations like al Qeada.

  • Maybe I'm wrong, but since VoIP is tranmitted like data is, if they get authority to tap what's being transferred via VoIP what's going to stop them from, say, tapping what I may be downloading/uploading at the time. If they're limited to just the junctions where VoIP meets the regular phone systems, like someone mentioned above, then I guess that's ok. But I see this as being a way for them to start peering in on what people are donwloading otherwise. I don't do secret service work but at the same time I d

  • Privacy is dead (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gnuontz ( 728970 )
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Ben Franklin... Oh, to be worthy of our forefathers.
  • I really don't understand how in a country where you claim you have freedom of speech, not just in public but anywhere. Someone can for WHATEVER reason listen in, record and then use that against you. That seriously sounds pretty extreme to me. Criticizing and or using your private conversations goes way against freedom and freedom of speech. I could never allow for such a thing whatever the reason. What happened to privacy? I don't care if you claim its for "my security", I am actually more secure when

  • Well (Score:1)

    by spx ( 855431 )
    If they really want to listen in on me, I think the most they will get is a conversation with myself and my three year old son, sometimes it goes: Him: What you doing (all hevey accent like hes italian) Me: Nuffin, just listening to you be silly Him: Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee He also adds the random 'PUNKHEAD', so Im sure thats fitting here haha If they really want to waste their time and my money, then go for it, I have no issues with the goverment thats been shitty since I learned what it w
  • I live in the United States yet my VOIP service is through an European company. I wonder how the FCC can regulate VOIP providers that are in another country. It's kind of like me using British Telecom for my local telephone calls to call my friends down the street.

    It's going to be interesting.
  • I noticed on newscientist that the US Air Force Research Lab is filing a patent "to bury secret messages in ordinary, unprotected communications by adding tones that can be deciphered at the other end of the line."

    Info here [newscientist.com]. (Well, the second entry anyway)

    I wonder how they plan on getting around ideas like this, even if they do get to monitor all VOIP traffic?
  • The tone of the post is sarcastic, and refers to the upgrade to VoIP technology that supports wiretapping as an "upgrade". The bias is palpable.

    Wiretaps are necessary for lots of reasons...and with a properly balanced judiciary we can avoid abuses. The idea that noone should be able to monitor anything, you do, ever, is just so much fantasy. There are bad people in the world, and there are legitimate reasons for law enforcement to monitor such things. In the end text messaging and other such things are

    • Wiretaps are necessary, but forcing a provider to make it easy is not something the law should do. Think about the olden days without digital phone service, a wire tap meant people had to physically tap the line. This method could be used today. Physically tap someones IP connection, and monitor all traffic. Any form of communication over an IP network should be investigated if a suspected criminal is engaging in something bad, not just VOIP. Eventually as providers upgrade technology, wiretapping will
  • Just because voice is sent over IP doesn't mean wire tapping laws should be used as an excuse/reason to change the technology. Internet traffic as a whole needs to be addressed, not just VOIP since that is just one application. How is VOIP any different that two people using a private chat? If the Man wants to tap IP, they should do it without making the providers suffer costs and inconvenience. The technology to tap an IP line is available and I am sure the techies employed by the Man could figure out

  • Since 1895 (Score:3, Informative)

    by ducomputergeek ( 595742 ) on Thursday October 27, 2005 @08:51AM (#13888549)
    Law enforcement have been wiretapping telephone and telegraph lines. They did so with the consent of the teleco companies and most people didn't even know the police did this. It wasn't until the 1930's that the The Federal Communications Act prohibitied wire-tapping, even for the government.

    Even though the information could not be used in court, the FBI and other police agencies continued to wire tap suspects. Again, they couldn't use the evidence in court, but if the police just happen to know where the mob was going to preform a hit or bank robbery and the police just happened to be ready to catch them in the act....

    FDR was the one that allowed the FBI & the Police to go before a judge get a warrent to tap a phone. Why? To stop Nazi Spies in WWII. How many Nazi spies and sabatures did the FBI actually nab during WWII? Actually I don't know the answer to that one.

    There is an old book called Ease Droppers that gives some interesting insights into the early world wiretapping. Governments have been using ease dropping technology starting with the Romans. They will continue to demand and use it in to the future.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Pull the trigger and you're garbage." -- Lady Blue

Close