FBI: We need wiretap-ready Web sites -- now

[Borg 386]

CNET learns the FBI is quietly pushing its plan to force surveillance backdoors on social networks, VoIP, and Web e-mail providers, and is asking Internet companies not to oppose a law making those backdoors mandatory.

The FBI is asking Internet companies not to oppose a controversial proposal that would require the firms, including Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, and Google, to build in backdoors for government surveillance.

In meetings with industry representatives, the White House, and U.S. senators, senior FBI officials argue the dramatic shift in communication from the telephone system to the Internet has made it far more difficult for agents to wiretap Americans suspected of illegal activities, CNET has learned.

The FBI's proposal would amend a 1994 law, called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA, that currently applies only to telecommunications providers, not Web companies. The Federal Communications Commission extended CALEA in 2004 to apply to broadband networks.

Read More:

FBI: We need wiretap-ready Web sites -- now | Security & Privacy - CNET News

 

[Layback Bear]

What would make anybody believe that governments don't already have back doors?

 

[Stratos]

Sounds like they want arbitrary access and not have to go through the process of obtaining a warrant to search each web companies contents.

 

[DustSailor]

Many complain simply because they know that they are breaking the law and do not want the law on their front porch. Others complain because they do not want a creepy government spying on them. I suppose there is another group that complains just to complain, but that is discussion for another time...

Say I wanted to join the CIA/FBI/Military/whatever, but had a very bad opinion on any particular current government program/system/whatever. Could my request be denied because of this knowledge?
Or could what I put on the internet, whether I say I am religious, or have been in a divorce, or otherwise appear to them not capable of the job, become a factor in hiring me? Scary thought.

I do not like Big Brother keeping tabs on me. I DO, however, want websites to be restricted when they pose a personal risk to anyone, or knowingly break the law. Now you have to be careful, because it is wrong for the government to block some dissident just because they don't like them. But I belive it is perfectly fine to threaten websites with termination if they send out viruses or break the law. But there has to be some kind of appeal process if the government gets it wrong, cause I'm sure there is plenty that the government would like to 'control' and keep silent.

That is why everyone should think long and hard when laws spring up asking you to give the government more power (in much prettier language). This is especially true with regulatory powers. Though the law may sound good, any goverment is completely capable of majorly restricting the freedoms of its own people. Then we will say "We are the people of our country, the proud, the free", and no one will believe us.

 

[Stratos]

Websites already pose a risk to anyone and everyone. The question is the severity of that risk and likelihood of it happening. It's very unrealistic when you expect everyone else to protect you from harm, at some point each individual needs to take it upon themselves to learn a few things about e-life and learn how to manage/reduce/mitigate risks of e-information being used maliciously. There is a theoretical point to how much you can minimize your e-fingerprint online but no way to reduce it to zero in today's world.

Back on point, the FBI is one firm not the nation itself. Many websites contain information for users that're not part of the US and they aren't the world's e-police. No single body or entity should have that sort of arbitrary access, as it was stated in the movie "Dark Knight", that's too much power for 1 person to have (person as a group, entity or firm). Information should always be regarded as "need to know". I don't care if you have super top secret clearance, if you don't have a "need to know" about someone's home address, SSN or birthdate, you have no business knowing unless you have court documents stating otherwise. At least when someone serves me a search warrant, I know I'm being searched. How does anyone know the FBI is doing the right thing when it has the keys to each website?

 

[seekermeister]

Many complain simply because they know that they are breaking the law and do not want the law on their front porch. Others complain because they do not want a creepy government spying on them. I suppose there is another group that complains just to complain, but that is discussion for another time...

There is a fourth group, those that oppose such actions simply because they are wrong. Any type of invasion of privacy can be justified on the basis of the used in propositions such as this, and each step taken takes us one move closer to having the government place observation cameras in our homes, vehicles and work places...shades of "1984". The step after that will be having the government setup entrapment schemes to bait people into their web, like flies that can't see what the spider has spun.


Some might say that this is good, because it is only designed to catch those pesky flies that endanger the rest of us, but the truth is that from the government's point of view, we all are nothing more than flies, gnats, etc., and the government's true motivation is to either control or eliminate any of us as they see fit.

 

[DustSailor]

Many complain simply because they know that they are breaking the law and do not want the law on their front porch. Others complain because they do not want a creepy government spying on them. I suppose there is another group that complains just to complain, but that is discussion for another time...

There is a fourth group, those that oppose such actions simply because they are wrong. Any type of invasion of privacy can be justified on the basis of the used in propositions such as this, and each step taken takes us one move closer to having the government place observation cameras in our homes, vehicles and work places....

Seeker, I sort of lumped that group in with the "...do not want a creepy government spying on them" group.

It is true what the government can do if we give it too much power, that is why we need to reign it in at times. The governmental 'web' should not need to be so big that it interfers with an innocent person's life on a regular basis.

It is kind of like the best security for a PC debate.
You can trade freedoms for additional security and vice versa. The only problem here is the government is often corrupt in places, so to trade freedom for security can be risky business when, as you say, the government gets selfish and views us all as 'flys'.
By "security", I mean protection from malicious people within and outside of the nation. By "freedom", I mean less governmental checkpoints, less government controled spy cams, and the list goes on.

 

[Stratos]

This skews off a tad but look at what could happen with online storage companies (cloud). There's a lot of people storing illegal content online but there's also a lot of those who store legit content as well. Cloud storage companies guarantee that your data is safe but how safe is it when the FBI has the keys to the backdoor to the facility? You should know that they aren't concerned about the data being encrypted, if they want to take a peek at your stuff they expect it to be decrypted to be examined.

Megaupload was seized for hosting a ton of illegal content but I'm certain there were quite a few legit customers that lost access to precious data.

 

[Gary]

Thery already can get into any website that they want to, they just want an easy way in.