Monday is Wiretap the Internet Day!

[Sidepocket]

May 14th is the official deadline for cable modem companies, DSL providers, broadband over powerline, satellite internet companies and some universities to finish wiring up their networks with FBI-friendly surveillance gear, to comply with the FCC's expanded interpretation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.

Congress passed CALEA in 1994 to help FBI eavesdroppers deal with digital telecom technology. The law required phone companies to make their networks easier to wiretap. The results: on mobile phone networks, where CALEA tech has 100% penetration, it's credited with boosting the number of court-approved wiretaps a carrier can handle simultaneously, and greatly shortening the time it takes to get a wiretap going. Cops can now start listening in less than a day.

Now that speed and efficiency is coming to internet surveillance. While CALEA is all about phones, the Justice Department began lobbying the FCC in 2002 to reinterpret the law as applying to the internet as well. The commission obliged, and last June a divided federal appeals court upheld the expansion 2-1. (The dissenting judge called the FCC's position "gobbledygook." But he was outnumbered.)

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 (.pdf), 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."

There are also third party brokers who will handle all this for you for a fee.

It's worth noting that the new requirements don't alter the legal standards for law enforcement to win court orders for internet wiretaps. Fans of CALEA expansion argue that it therefore won't increase the number of Americans under surveillance.

That's wrong, of course.  Making surveillance easier and faster gives law enforcement agencies of all stripes more reason to eschew old-fashioned police work in favor of spying. The telephone CALEA compliance deadline was in 2002, and since then the amount of court-ordered surveillance has nearly doubled from 2,586 applications granted that year, to 4,015 orders in 2006.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/05/r...der_monday.html

Welcome to 198-er-2007 baby!  8-)

[Sparda]

If any of the specification specifies collected information be remotely accessible...

[VaKo]

The biggest safeguard we have against our respective governments is simply there ability to screw things up.

[SmoothCriminal]

The biggest safeguard we have against our respective governments is simply there ability to screw things up.

So true.  The governments inability to do anything right or on budget is on our side.  Go inefficient government!

[SmoothCriminal]

The biggest safeguard we have against our respective governments is simply there ability to screw things up.

Oh, and that quote is worthy of a signature.

[cooper]

Fans of CALEA expansion argue that it therefore won't increase the number of Americans under surveillance. That's wrong, of course.  Making surveillance easier and faster gives law enforcement agencies of all stripes more reason to eschew old-fashioned police work in favor of spying.

I don't follow this reasoning. A fed would still need to go to a judge and ask for permission to wiretap your ass. The only thing the law changed was the ease at which this surveillance can take place after this request has been granted. I don't have a problem with law enforcement being able to wiretap once a judge gives the okay for it.

The telephone CALEA compliance deadline was in 2002, and since then the amount of court-ordered surveillance has nearly doubled from 2,586 applications granted that year, to 4,015 orders in 2006.

And this particular quote is what made me downgrade the entire article to the bullshit department: They're scaremongering.

Going from 2586 to 4015 isn't "nearly double"-ing. It's an increase of 55%. Assuming it's a linear increase we're talking about 11.65% increase of approved applications per year. At that rate it will take another 2 years before they reach the doubling point.

Save your anger for when they try to push the judge out of the loop. *THAT*'s when you should worry about your right to privacy.

[Sidepocket]

You never met the judges I have met then. Just go up to them when they are half asleep and they will sign anything, even if its to open up a Nazi Death camp in your own home town.

How do you think our politicians and law enforcement gets the approval to do the stupid stuff they do in the first place?

[cooper]

Perhaps it might be interesting for us to know what the approval rate is of the wiretapping requests.

At currently 4000 wiretaps per year for the whole of the US, I'm thinking they either don't expect much from this, or the judges are doing what they should be doing, and are closely scrutinizing the requests for validity.

Oh, and just so you know. Politicians make laws. Judges check to see if they are being lived by. Citizens and law enforcement (the latter doubly so actually) needs to abide by them.

[digip]

Perhaps it might be interesting for us to know what the approval rate is of the wiretapping requests.

At currently 4000 wiretaps per year for the whole of the US, I'm thinking they either don't expect much from this, or the judges are doing what they should be doing, and are closely scrutinizing the requests for validity.

Oh, and just so you know. Politicians make laws. Judges check to see if they are being lived by. Citizens and law enforcement (the latter doubly so actually) needs to abide by them.

here in America we have one law. The law of G.W.Bush. What he says he does, even when he is breaking the law. Post 9/11 America...thanks Bush, I feel MUCH safer now! (that was sarcasm if you didn't pick up on it. IMPEECH BUSH!)

The problem I have with this order by the FCC is that the companies lay down and do what they say without fighting them in court. Google has been the only big player to say no when the government requests something. There should never have been an order to put in place something that can be abused by the powers to be. Our privacy is not th eonly thing at stake, but our sense of trust for our own government. There has always  been a way for them to wiretap, and they woudl still need approval from a judge, but liek last year when the NSA was having phone companies lie down and roll over for them, only a few fought back with requested court orders. I think it was AT&T that made gave them the most freedom to come in and tap their equipment(don't quote me on that) but they should never have done it in the first place. Becuase of Bush's so called "power in the wake of 9/11" he has done things that he is being investigated for, yet none of it will probably ever come to light untill after he is out of office. Giving the government free access to ISP's and Phone Lines is surely going to be abused at some point, even though they do it already WITHOUT court orders and most of the time WITHOUT us knowing, unless some whistle blower comes forward to expose it.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619

The only thing Calea does is give them easier access to abuse our rights.

[VaKo]

I thought the whole point of the wiretapping scandal wasn't that it was court approved and specifically targeted (there are times when you need to wiretap someone, we need to be honest about that). The problem was that they were wiretapping thousands of people in some kinda government fishing trip, without any kind of court approval. Thats the problem, its the difference between the police having a strong suspicion backed up with evidence that you have broken a specific law, and just searching your home to make sure you've not broken any laws.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendm...es_Constitution

[Shaun]

Google has been the only big player to say no when the government requests something.

Unless it's the Chinese government who could deny access to that juicy growing market.

[Sidepocket]

Perhaps it might be interesting for us to know what the approval rate is of the wiretapping requests.

At currently 4000 wiretaps per year for the whole of the US, I'm thinking they either don't expect much from this, or the judges are doing what they should be doing, and are closely scrutinizing the requests for validity.

Oh, and just so you know. Politicians make laws. Judges check to see if they are being lived by. Citizens and law enforcement (the latter doubly so actually) needs to abide by them.

Still is not a valid argument that this country (or any for that matter) has a good system that prevents corruption. If it did, cases like Darryl Hunt would have never happened.

This just makes current security and justice flaws much easier to be carried out.

Not to mention, a even larger threat would be someone who could hack this system to gain access to most computers around the globe. The easier the system is, the more exploiters you potentially have.

[VaKo]

I doubt this would happen though, the Bush administration has seriously damaged American foreign relations and reputation on the world stage. Other nations are starting to reconsider there communications links which enter American territory. The national security considerations plus the American habit of anti-competitive trade measures will irreparably damage the United States position to carry out global wiretapping.

[SmoothCriminal]

I don't follow this reasoning. A fed would still need to go to a judge and ask for permission to wiretap your ass. The only thing the law changed was the ease at which this surveillance can take place after this request has been granted. I don't have a problem with law enforcement being able to wiretap once a judge gives the okay for it.

And this particular quote is what made me downgrade the entire article to the bullshit department: They're scaremongering.

Going from 2586 to 4015 isn't "nearly double"-ing. It's an increase of 55%. Assuming it's a linear increase we're talking about 11.65% increase of approved applications per year. At that rate it will take another 2 years before they reach the doubling point.

Save your anger for when they try to push the judge out of the loop. *THAT*'s when you should worry about your right to privacy.

Thanks to something I like to call the G W can suck my left nut act (Patriot act).  The Feds don't need to go to  a judge, they can just start listening if they deem you a threat.

[Sidepocket]

Thanks to something I like to call the G W can suck my left nut act (Patriot act).  The Feds don't need to go to  a judge, they can just start listening if they deem you a threat.

Bingo. Ever since at least Nixon this kind of shit have been escalating. Every time a system gets invented they leave the biggest flaw out: Corruption.