Monday is Wiretap the Internet Day 264
Alien54 wrote with a link to a Wired blog entry noting that May 14th is the official deadline for internet service providers to modify their networks, and meet the FBI and FCC's new regulations. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act requires that everyone from cable services to Universities give them access, within certain parameters, to the usage habits of customers. "So, if you're a broadband provider (separately, some VOIP companies are covered too) ... Hurry! The deadline has already passed to file an FCC form 445, certifying that you're on schedule, or explaining why you're not. You can also find the 68-page official industry spec for internet surveillance here. It'll cost you $164.00 to download, but then you'll know exactly what format to use when delivering customer packets to federal or local law enforcement, including 'e-mail, instant messaging records, web-browsing information and other information sent or received through a user's broadband connection, including on-line banking activity.'"
suggestion (Score:5, Informative)
Interestingly, this is the same kind of solution often resorted to by residents of those countries usually tagged as 'repressive regimes' by the good ole U.S. of A. Make ya think, at all?
Re:suggestion (Score:1, Informative)
Telecommunications services only (Score:5, Informative)
It's important to note that CALEA doesn't apply to "information services" or "electronic messaging services", only "telecommunications". Here are the relevant parts of the actual law [wikisource.org]:
Re:Limits on government (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So glad I'm expat now... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm afraid it's going to be difficult to coordinate protests with this kind of monitoring in place. And we're still seeing people say "but if it saves one life from terrorists", not realizing that it actually encourages terrorism by ruining trust in government and making people feel that only violent action might be effective.
Re:$164 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:$164 (Score:5, Informative)
There has since been a court ruling against copyrighting law. I did a Search of SC law for the term COPYRIGHT [scstatehouse.net] and only got five hits.... none of which have any relation to the "text from the SC law" that you quoted. Maybe the law you quoted did exist in 1998, but it does not appear to exist now. They may have specifically repealed it in response to the court ruling on the subject.
-
Re:Limits on government (Score:2, Informative)
The way I understand it is that the constitution limits the powers that the government has by enumerating them. It defines the upper limit of the power of the government. In contrast, the bill of rights defines the lower limit of rights that the people have by enumerating basic rights. People have more rights than are defined in the bill of rights. They are only limited by the law (the manifestation of other people's rights).
That's close, but not quite. What the constitution really does is grant the government powers by enumerating them. Some of those grants are quite broad. For example, the interstate commerce clause has been interpreted so broadly as to allow the government to regulate nearly anything involving the production and distribution of goods. But the important thing to remember is that the US government derives its power from its citizens and is innately limited to whatever powers we grant it. The government doesn't have any intrinsic powers for the constitution to limit.
Your explanation of these grants and the bill of rights as upper and lower bounds is a very good, concise description. I've never seen constitutional law boiled down to something that can be parsed by a mathematician before.