U.S. Wants Easier Internet Wiretap measures

[sygnus21]

U.S. Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet

WASHINGTON — Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is “going dark” as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.

Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally.

Source - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Just gotta love Big Brother watching out for us

 

[CarlTR6]

You can trust the government; just ask any Native American.

 

[Win7User512]

Scary. I hope these efforts are defeated.

 

[sygnus21]

The problem I have is trusting those with the basic concept - how to balance security needs with protecting privacy.

It is a balancing act - and history has shown that not everyone handles it with skill, and grace. Abuse of power comes to mind.

 

[fseal]

Actually most other countries are LEADING us by example, they won't need to look to us to get any ideas...

We should be the last to ever implement this though. What next? Make usable encryption illegal again? (It used to be, remember?)

If I encrypt something OUTSIDE the space of facebook or skype then use that tool to transmit the data, what then? Instant terrorism suspect I would guess...

 

[Bootz]

This goes along with the thread about internet censorship, its all about our government having control. However, i do not have as big of a problem with this one because even if they do read our messages you are not gonna get in trouble unless you are actually breaking the law. This will make it more difficult for terrorists and criminals alike to communicate descretly.

Internet censorship in some cases could be good but also could be abused very easily. Soon as they take away something like free speech by blocking certain websites. The government's actions become criminal themselves.

 

[Win7User512]

However, i do not have as big of a problem with this one because even if they do read our messages you are not gonna get in trouble unless you are actually breaking the law.

Except for the fact that the FBI rights and signs its own search warrants without the signature of a judge. The Gov't (FBI, Whitehouse) will tell you what is appropriate to them.

 

[BCXtreme]

However, i do not have as big of a problem with this one because even if they do read our messages you are not gonna get in trouble unless you are actually breaking the law.

Except for the fact that the FBI rights and signs its own search warrants without the signature of a judge. The Gov't (FBI, Whitehouse) will tell you what is appropriate to them.

Exactly. Between this and the other topic, people HAVE to see the pattern.

 

[sygnus21]

However, i do not have as big of a problem with this one because even if they do read our messages you are not gonna get in trouble unless you are actually breaking the law. This will make it more difficult for terrorists and criminals alike to communicate descretly.

The problem is what is "actually" considered a crime in this area. We've all read and seen where innocent people get caught up in the net of "counter-terrorism"

Sorry but this comes to mind...

They came for the Communists,
and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Communist;
They came for the Socialists,
and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Socialist;
They came for the labor leaders,
and I didn't object - For I wasn't a labor leader;
They came for the Jews,
and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Jew;
Then they came for me -
And there was no one left to object.

- Martin Niemoller, German Protestant Pastor -

The point... if we accept bad behavior because it doesn't happen to us, then there will be no one left to object to your wrongful accusers.

I'm all about security and protection and remember the horrors of 911 as well as the many horrors of terrorism around the world, so yeah, we need measures to catch these people before things happen.

If this is to be done, I would hope it’s STRONGLY administered by the courts, and not just become a tool for a few overzealous governmental agencies to spy on its citizens for "security" reasons… wink wink.

It’s a fine balancing act, and well…

 

[Klaw117]

I think something like this wouldn't be too bad provided that (1) you have nothing to hide or (2) the government doesn't go mad with power. I'm not too worried about the government going mad though because of the separation of powers in the American government and the practice of judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court justices declare this unconstitutional, then the government will be forced to either scrap the idea or ease restrictions on it so that freedom of speech is still protected.

 

[fseal]

Since when do governments NOT go mad with power?

It is up to the people to PREVENT thier governments from going mad with power.

 

[marsmimar]

I'm not too worried about the government going mad though because of the separation of powers in the American government and the practice of judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"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." --- Bill of Rights, 4th Amendment

There is a provision for law enforcement authorities to circumvent the practice of judicial review if they claim exigent circumstances. An exigent circumstance allows law enforcement to enter a property without a warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape. There is no judicial review until after the fact.

 

[sygnus21]

There is a provision for law enforcement authorities to circumvent the practice of judicial review if they claim exigent circumstances. An exigent circumstance allows law enforcement to enter a property without a warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape. There is no judicial review until after the fact.

Ahhh... the old catch all provision

Now I remember why people feel law enforcement officials abuse their powers. (and criminals get off on technicalities)

 

[bigseb]

In South Africa this is already implemented.

I vehemently oppose it.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi all
Don't go overboard with this stuff -- throw Politics to one side and just consider the Logistics.

The sheer volume of data required would just overwhelm the people who would be carrying out the searches -- and any Court if it came to that would want 100% cast iron guarantee that the data could NOT have been modified in any way since collection -- not so easy to prove in practice especially in Europe where MOD papers have been left in a Brief case on a public subway and lots of similar cases of confidential data "going missing".

Also just think of the people who would be operating this stuff. I can't think of even ONE government department run in ANY COUNTRY where people are efficient and competant.

The sheer beaurocracy of these departments and the time it would take to get what they need would have rendered the data LONG SINCE OBSOLETE by then.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Layback Bear]

Your correct in your last post marsmimar that is the 4th amendment and I like what it says and believe in it. From my understanding the law enforcement are asking for the same ability on the internet as they had with old wired phone lines. They don't want to monitor everybody just those that are suspected off doing or planing to do this nation and it's people harm. I don't think the N.S.A. could monitor everything even if they had permission from the courts. The Security Agency's of this Nation want to be able to watch the bad guys that use the cyberspace for communications. I don't have a problem with that. Remember right after 911 it was reported in all kinds of news outlets that our agency's had a lot of information that indicated that something was in the workings but weren't allowed to connect the dots. Well folks they want to gather information from the bad guy's and connect the dots.

 

[arkhi]

However, i do not have as big of a problem with this one because even if they do read our messages you are not gonna get in trouble unless you are actually breaking the law. This will make it more difficult for terrorists and criminals alike to communicate descretly.

If I were a terorist, I won't use facebook. Instead, I will communicate differently (i.e. physical contact). Should I need to use the internet, I would develop my own encryption or probably double encrypt my messages using salts and such with many of the widely available encryption algorythms out there.

 

[bigseb]

Hi all
Don't go overboard with this stuff -- throw Politics to one side and just consider the Logistics.

The sheer volume of data required would just overwhelm the people who would be carrying out the searches -- and any Court if it came to that would want 100% cast iron guarantee that the data could NOT have been modified in any way since collection -- not so easy to prove in practice especially in Europe where MOD papers have been left in a Brief case on a public subway and lots of similar cases of confidential data "going missing".

Also just think of the people who would be operating this stuff. I can't think of even ONE government department run in ANY COUNTRY where people are efficient and competant.

The sheer beaurocracy of these departments and the time it would take to get what they need would have rendered the data LONG SINCE OBSOLETE by then.

Cheers
jimbo

Here in SA they record everything (data, cell calls, landline calls, everything) for 5 years. All the information is stored in a database where it can be easily accessed if necessary. This includes pin numbers and passwords (say for internet banking). Fact remains that this info is too easily accessible which is not only a security risk but also an infraction on my private life.

Ultimately to punish everyone for the sake of a few is just plain wrong.

 

[Layback Bear]

Most of us are getting new warnings on various news media about planed attacks. Some governments have gathered enough information about these plans. I would think some of this terrorist planing information was gathered by monitoring there phone, internet, and other means of communications. I here these new warnings about every 30 minutes on the radio today.

 

[Bootz]

However, i do not have as big of a problem with this one because even if they do read our messages you are not gonna get in trouble unless you are actually breaking the law. This will make it more difficult for terrorists and criminals alike to communicate descretly.

If I were a terorist, I won't use facebook. Instead, I will communicate differently (i.e. physical contact). Should I need to use the internet, I would develop my own encryption or probably double encrypt my messages using salts and such with many of the widely available encryption algorythms out there.

The only thing is that after seeing what happend to iran. Who is now asking for international help with their stuxnet nightmare. No encryption is gonna be safe. If you were a terrorist and this were implemented you would have to meet in person or get caught.