Monday is Wiretap the Internet Day

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.'"

Limits on government

[BWJones]

Of course this has been going on for some time, but we are only just now getting around to making it legal (Constitutional arguments aside). I really do find this incredibly disturbing and believe that the founding members of this country would be shocked and dismayed at where we have gone in the past few years (last six or so in particular). What I cannot believe is how anyone on either side of the political spectrum would 1) think this is a good idea and 2) allow this to happen. Remember people that this country is still young and has the appearance of a country that is not only spinning out of control, but it seems to be edging closer to devolving into a shell of its former self. Don't get me wrong here. I am proud to be an American, but we should not stand silent while this country falls apart either through selfish motivation or criminal negligence.

Remember folks that the Constitution is not a document about what rights people possess, nor is it a document that outlines what governments can do. Rather it is a document that describes limits on what government can do and it could be clearly argued that the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act violates those provisions in the Constitution designed to protect the individual from unreasonable governmental surveillance.

Amendment IV

[poor_boi]

Amendtment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

not cool

[Anonymous Coward]

those who give up freedoms for security get neither security nor freedom. these morons work for us not the other way around damn it...

Re:suggestion

[cabinetsoft]

Get a colo service, preferably in another country

or just move there...

Frequently misunderstood questions

[Anonymous Coward]

From the askCALEA FAQs:
http://www.askcalea.net/faq_answers/020_faq.html [askcalea.net]

Frequently Misunderstood Questions

On March 17, 2004, we published a press release regarding our joint petition.

Q: Does the petition for CALEA rulemaking propose to apply CALEA to all types of online communication, including instant messaging and visits to websites?

A: No. The petition proposes CALEA coverage of only broadband Internet access service and broadband telephony service. Other Internet-based services, including those classified as "information services" such as email and visits to websites, would not be covered.

Q: Does the petition propose extensive retooling of existing broadband networks that could impose significant costs?

A: No. The petition contends that CALEA should apply to certain broadband services but does not address the issue of what technical capabilities those broadband providers should deliver to law enforcement. CALEA already permits those service providers to fashion their own technical standards as they see fit. If law enforcement considers an industry technical standard deficient, it can seek to change the standard only by filing a special "deficiency" petition before the Commission. It is the FCC, not law enforcement, that decides whether any capabilities should be added to the standard. The FCC may refuse to order a change in a standard on many different grounds. For example, a capability may be rejected because it is too costly. Therefore CALEA already contains protections for industry against paying undue compliance costs.

Q: Did law enforcement ask the FCC to curtail its usual review process to implement the petition?

A: No. Law enforcement asked the FCC to give the proposed rulemaking expedited treatment. Such treatment is often requested and granted when urgent matters are brought to the FCC's attention. Some FCC rulemaking proceedings can take years to complete. Law enforcement believes expedited treatment is warranted in this case based on evidence that terrorists, criminals, and/or spies are already exploiting the networks of broadband communication providers to evade lawful electronic surveillance.

Q: Is Law enforcement trying to dictate how the Internet should be engineered to permit whatever level of surveillance law enforcement deems necessary?

A: No. Law enforcement does not seek the power to dictate how the Internet should be engineered or even to decide how broadband communications networks should be engineered. As explained above, CALEA already allocates those decisions to industry and any resulting capability disputes between industry and law enforcement are decided by the FCC. Moreover, the level of surveillance is not an issue raised in the petition, is not within the scope of CALEA, and is not decided by law enforcement. Based on a statute known as "Title III," before a law enforcement agent or officer is permitted to engage in lawful electronic surveillance, he or she must seek an appropriate court order from a judge or magistrate. Only if a judicial order is issued can the lawful surveillance take place, and the level of surveillance is prescribed by the order.

Q: Does the petition ignore the letter or spirit of CALEA's "information services" exemption by seeking to apply CALEA to such services?

A: No. The petition notes that CALEA contains a definition of "telecommunications carrier" that is different from and broader than the definition of that term in the Communications Act, which governs most FCC actions. The petition therefore asks the FCC to decide the scope of CALEA coverage based on the CALEA definition, not the Communications Act definition. As a result, some carriers classified as "information service" providers for purposes of the Communications Act would be simultaneously deemed "telecommunications carriers" for purposes of CALEA.

Q: Would the petition force carriers

Re:Amendment IV

[koreth]

Don't be naive. Here are two workarounds off the top of my head, either of which would be solid enough to be repeated ad nauseum to the nodding masses on talk shows: 1) It's not unreasonable to search and seize whatever we have to, if it means keeping the public safe from another 9/11. 2) We have probable cause to believe that terror cells are operating somewhere in the US, and the Internet is the place it's holding its meetings.

The Constitution has never been much of an obstacle to people in power. Hell, if the past is any indication, they'll probably find some way to twist the commerce clause to allow it; that seems to be the "feds get to do whatever the hell they want" section of the Constitution.

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[Repton]

Yeah! The false positive rates will be so high the government will have no choice but to kill the programme! It'll be just like the no-fly list!

Re:Limits on government

[Heembo]

I hear you, but what can we do to really stop this? Submit more digg posts? Write our congressman? Protest at the FCC HQ? What can we do to really stop this? I'm all ears!

Re:Bot me up, baby...

[aussie_a]

So in short, if under surveillance, perform every crime you could possibly conceive!

Looking at porn and going to gambling sites as well as harmless arabic sites is a crime in America? Wow, I never knew America was so repressive. So much for being the land of the free.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Limits on government

[asninn]

Basically, it boils down to Howdershelt's four boxes again - soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Google for the exact quote.

Parent apparently didn't think before typing.

[Anonymous Coward]

"you're making the job harder" - the same could be said when you close the door on a cop sans search warrant. It could be that the police are just trying to catch criminals. But there's no guarentee that they're not just spying on everyone, prying in their private lives. Nor is there any guarantee that they won't do that tomorrow. In free countries the law imposes limits on the power of the goverment for a reason.

Re:So the next step

[bmo]

"Hopefully this will drive people and information service providers to use encryption wherever they can."

Of the general population of the US, only the technically minded minority will do that.

Seriously. Try to talk to someone who thinks that the Internet is the IE icon (really, a co-worker keeps saying this) and all you'll get is glazed eyeballs and a "I don't get it. It's too complicated. I have nothing to hide" reaction.

Such people can't even be trusted to keep their anti-malware software for Windows up to date. You think the general public is going to start encrypting everything suddenly because of this?

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin

Only if encryption gets as transparent as the fish:// ioslave in KDE will it get serious adoption, and even then it will have to be enabled by default. Don't expect Microsoft to lead the way in this department.

--
BMO

Mod parent up, seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

(no text)

Re:I will take my beating now

[iminplaya]

That's precisely the image I'm trying to impart as to what's happening to all of the Americans. But it appears they know, and they like it. And they will be voting for more of the same in 08. Too bad the mods aren't getting the message, because it certainly isn't offtopic. But then I can understand that people don't like to be told they are being raped. We are expected to lie down, relax, and enjoy it. Then pretend it never happened...for the sake of the country of course. "The needs of the many..."

Miss Hillary! Miss Hillary! Come quick! Someone left the gate open and the slaves they are escapin'.

Yes, expect revocation of your passports soon. Travel restrictions won't just apply to Cuba. Anywhere outside the border will be considered off limits. Poor lost, pitiful souls. I hope they are grateful that the weather is better than Siberia.

Re:Limits on government

[MindKata]

The government, any government from any party is made up of people who's career has been to seek power. In other words, seek power over other people. Its no surprise anyone in power would seek to gain more power over others and technology allows this, so there's an inevitable drift towards wanting more power. This applies to all governments in all countries, its not just American, although its more saddening to hear from countries which claim to allow personal freedom. But that freedom has always been mostly an illusion caused by the people in power lacking the resources to control to the level some of them would wish to have.

This is why people throughout the political spectrum would 1) think its a good idea and 2) allow this to happen.

Without restraint then unfortunately I think the world could walk into a big brother scenario. All the time people in power fear opponents seeking to oppose them or bully them in their point of view, or simply undermine their power, they will want to secure stronger controls of people.

Its being driven by basic human natures, (such as fear), rather than being driven specifically by any one political ideology.

Wouldn't work

[Wyatt Earp]

American Indian reservations act like States or Terriories in that Federal Law applies there. Worse, since all Capital and violent crimes are handled by the FBI, almost every reservation has a local FBI office.

Re:Amendment IV

[iminplaya]

You can knock people over head with the law all you want, and all you will do is knock them unconscious. Ignore the government and take it up with the people around you. Remember, many of them think the bill of rights "grants" too much freedom. That is what you're up against. The government is just the result, not the cause.

Re:Limits on government

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: I am not American, so I possibly don't know enough about your constitution.

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).

Re:misunderstood

[spottedkangaroo]

Right, all the above is true I'm sure. However, the may 14th deadline is for CALEA (it does require a court order) which has little to do with anything you're saying.

Re:But the obvious "solution"...

[J'raxis]

What happened in 1974-11? From this list [wikipedia.org], are you talking about:

Democrats make significant gains in the U.S. Congressional midterm elections, as voters punish the Republican Party over the Watergate scandal.

What, Democrats wrecking the country? I'd pick FDR (ca. 1933) if I wanted to point to a turning point in which the Democrats got a bunch of overbearing laws passed, not 1974. Or perhaps 1917-1918, with the passage of the Sedition Act and Espionage Act, under president Wilson. But plenty of things happened prior to even that that have slowly eroded any meaning of "republic" or "freedom" in this country.

It was in 1886 [wikipedia.org] when corporations really got free reign to run this country.

In 1861, a constitutional crisis over secession by states was settled through war [wikipedia.org], by a president who also suspended the Constitution, instituted the first military draft, had congressional opponents accused of treason, and began printing massive amounts of paper fiat currency, among other things. The outcome of the war was also the beginning of rapid industrialization in the United States, turning the vast majority of Americans into wage slaves working in factories. This one is of course particularly ironic because it's been justified as a war for freedom.

And as for the first power grab by the federal government? Let's look at the passage of the U.S. Constitution itself, replacing the much weaker Articles of Confederation, justified as a response to Shays Rebellion [wikipedia.org]:

[T]he nationalists took advantage of a propitious rebellion, that of Daniel Shays, ...

[T]he nationalists wanted to scare the country into supporting a more vigorous government. George Washington was terrified. "We are fast verging toward anarchy and confusion," he wrote. His nationalist friends did their best to heighten his terror. Henry Knox wrote Washington of the Shaysites that "their creed is that the property of the United States" having been freed from British exactions "by the joint exertions of all, ought to be the common property of all." This was utterly false, but it did the trick. Washington agreed to be the presiding officer at the constitutional convention. Later, [James] Madison in Federalist No. 10 warned that without the strong arm of a vigorous central government, the states would be vulnerable to movements motivated by "a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property" and for other "improper or wicked project[s]."

Re:Limits on government

[Syberghost]

It's rather disingenuous to take a law that Bill Clinton signed and supported, and which was in existence for 7 years of his Presidency, and try to spin your disagreement with it into an indictment of the current administration. Especially considering the fact that a Democrat wrote it, and all the Democrats in both houses of Congress voted for it. As did all the Republicans; I'll neither whitewash nor spin this.

Re:Limits on government

[billcopc]

Only problem is the democrats don't have enough money to buy all the votes.

The United States were built through wars, not diplomacy. Why does anyone expect that to change now ? It's a young country whose only history involves fighting... fighting others, fighting itself... It takes a long time for a nation to stabilize and harmonize, the only reason the US is even on the map is because of their notoriety and a few long streaks of financial success, as well as some pretty serious tunnel-vision as evidenced by the complete ignorance of China's power until recently. Everything is still very much up in the air for the next few years and it all depends on how well the United States can perform as a whole nation, not just its simian leader.

Re:Limits on government

[yabos]

Well as someone said(I think on South Park actually), what do you do when you're choices are a total idiot and a douche? Face it, in the US(and here in Canada, Liberal vs. Conservative, both equally useless parties), there aren't really any choices. The other small parties have no idea what they'd do if they actually won.

Re:misunderstood

[Antique Geekmeister]

But that's not what you said. You said, and I quote "They need to provide evidence, get a court order, and disclose their discoveries to the defense when they press criminal charges.".

This is clearly not the case. And whatever made you think charges will be pressed? Not only do they not need to press charges, under the Patriot Act and similar laws and policies, you can be held without bail, without a lawyer, and without the government admitting you exist under situations like Guantanamo Bay. And you can be seized in another country and deported to countries where torture is legal.

It can't be done to US citizens? How do you know it hasn't been? Do you have a list of who's in Guantanamo Bay? Can you even *get* such a list?

Yes, I verge a bit on the tin foil hat wearing crowd about thus, but not without cause. This stuff is nasty and it's verifiable that it's occurring.

Re:Yes, of course.

[Antique Geekmeister]

I'm just saying it doesn't buy you as much protection as you seem to think, since the communication channels are still vulnerable and the storage itself is accessible to another country's screwups.

A famous example of this is the death of anon.penet.fi, after numerous assaults on it with and without warrants. It's well-described over at Wikipedia.

Re:Limits on government

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

Bravo, sir! You clearly understand exactly what the US Constitution says. I would be proud to sponsor your citizenship, if you'll promise me you'll vote along those lines. Unfortunately, almost nobody in America does, particularly those in power.