View Full Version : Michael Powell wants to let the FBI monitor all your net actions


Oz
03-13-2004, 01:36 PM
privacy taken away in the name of protecting us from terrorism - oh, and your cable bill is going to go up because of it Michael Powell wants all broadband providers to re-wire their networks so the FBI can tap all your actions on the net and broadband services -

A far-reaching proposal from the FBI, made public Friday, would require all broadband Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.

The FBI's request to the Federal Communications Commission aims to give police ready access to any form of Internet-based communications (http://news.com.com/2100-7352-5137344.html?tag=nl). If approved as drafted, the proposal could dramatically expand the scope of the agency's wiretap powers, raise costs for cable broadband companies and complicate Internet product development. [hr]
Legal experts said the 85-page filing includes language that could be interpreted as forcing companies to build back doors into everything from instant messaging and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) programs to Microsoft's Xbox Live game service. The introduction of new services that did not support a back door for police would be outlawed, and companies would be given 15 months to make sure that existing services comply.

"The importance and the urgency of this task cannot be overstated," says the proposal, which is also backed by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration. "The ability of federal, state and local law enforcement to carry out critical electronic surveillance is being compromised today."

Because the eavesdropping scheme has the support of the Bush administration, the FCC is expected to take it very seriously. Last month, FCC Chairman Michael Powell stressed that "law enforcement access to IP-enabled communications is essential" and that police must have "access to communications infrastructure they need to protect our nation."

The request from federal police comes almost a year after representatives from the FBI's Electronic Surveillance Technology Section approached the FCC and asked that broadband providers be required to provide more efficient, standardized surveillance facilities. Such new rules were necessary, the FBI argued, because terrorists could otherwise frustrate legitimate wiretaps by placing phone calls over the Internet.

"It is a very big deal and will be very costly for the Internet and the deployment of new technologies," said Stewart Baker, who represents Internet providers as a partner at law firm Steptoe & Johnson. "Law enforcement is very serious about it. There is a lot of emotion behind this. They have stories that they're very convinced about in which they have not achieved access to communications and in which wiretaps have failed."

Broadband in the mix
Broadband providers say the FBI's request would, for the first time, force cable providers that sell broadband to come under the jurisdiction of 1994's Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which further defined the already existing statutory obligations of telecommunications carriers to help police conduct electronic surveillance. Telephone companies that use their networks to sell broadband have already been following CALEA rules.

"For cable companies, it's all new," said Bill McCloskey, a BellSouth spokesman.

Several cable providers, including Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Cablevision Systems, had no immediate comment on the FBI's request.

The FBI proposal would also force Vonage, 8x8, AT&T and other prominent providers of broadband telephone services to comply with CALEA. Executives from these companies have said in the past that they all intend to comply with any request law enforcement makes, if technically possible.

Broadband phone service providers say they are already creating a code of conduct to cover some of the same issues the FBI is addressing--but on a voluntary basis, according to Jeff Pulver, founder of Free World Dialup. "We have our chance right now to prove to law enforcement that we can do this on a voluntary basis," Pulver said. "If we mandate and make rules, it will just complicate things."

Under CALEA, police must still follow legal procedures when wiretapping Internet communications. Depending on the situation, such wiretaps do not always require court approval, in part because of expanded wiretapping powers put in place by the USA Patriot Act.

A Verizon representative said Friday that the company has already complied with at least one law enforcement request to tap a DSL line.

This week's proposal surprised privacy advocates by reaching beyond broadband providers to target companies that offer communications applications such as instant-messaging clients.

"I don't think it's a reasonable claim," said Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "The FCC should seriously consider where the FBI believes its authority...to regulate new technologies would end. What about Bluetooth and USB?"

Baker agrees that the FBI's proposal means that IP-based services such as chat programs and videoconferencing "that are 'switched' in any fashion would be treated as telephony." If the FCC agrees, Baker said, "you would have to vet your designs with law enforcement before providing your service. There will be a queue. There will be politics involved. It would completely change the way services are introduced on the Internet."

As encryption becomes glued into more and more VoIP and instant-messaging systems like PSST, X-IM and CryptIM, eavesdropping methods like the FBI's Carnivore system (also called DCS1000) become less useful. Both Free World Dialup's Pulver, and Niklas Zennstrom, founder of Skype, said last month that their services currently offer no easy wiretap route for police, because VoIP calls travel along the Internet in tens of thousands of packets, each sometimes taking completely different routes.

Skype has become a hot button in the debate by automatically encrypting all calls that take place through the peer-to-peer voice application.

The origins of this debate date back to when the FBI persuaded Congress to enact the controversial CALEA. Louis Freeh, FBI director at the time, testified in 1994 that emerging technologies such as call forwarding, call waiting and cellular phones had frustrated surveillance efforts.

Congress responded to the FBI's concern by requiring that telecommunications services rewire their networks to provide police with guaranteed access for wiretaps. Legislators also granted the FCC substantial leeway in defining what types of companies must comply. So far, the FCC has interpreted CALEA's wiretap-ready requirements to cover only traditional analog and wireless telephone service, leaving broadband and Internet applications in a regulatory gray area.

Under the FBI's proposal, Internet companies would bear "sole financial responsibility for development and implementation of CALEA solutions" but would be authorized to raise prices to cover their costs.

FBI adds to wiretap wish list
Last modified: March 12, 2004, 1:05 PM PST
By Declan McCullagh and Ben Charny
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

alter-ego69
03-13-2004, 02:27 PM
privacy taken away in the name of protecting us from terrorism - oh, and your cable bill is going to go up because of it

Michael Powell wants all broadband providers to re-wire their networks so the FBI can tap all your actions on the net and broadband services -

A far-reaching proposal from the FBI, made public Friday, would require all broadband Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.

The FBI's request to the Federal Communications Commission aims to give police ready access to any form of Internet-based communications. If approved as drafted, the proposal could dramatically expand the scope of the agency's wiretap powers, raise costs for cable broadband companies and complicate Internet product development.

more (http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html)



It will never happen. Besides....the Internet is open sourced communication that carries no expectation of privacy. You are already traceable to every 16 year old hacker in the country.

Oz
03-13-2004, 02:47 PM
It will never happen. Besides....the Internet is open sourced communication that carries no expectation of privacy. You are already traceable to every 16 year old hacker in the country.

so because some 16 year old can do it makes it ok? If a hacker does do that it is illegal and prosecutable. I hate to break it to you but a large portion of the net is expected and programmed to be private. And how do you know that the FBI won't be granted that ability? It is being done to save us you know?

what is an open sourced communication? :scratch:

alter-ego69
03-13-2004, 03:19 PM
so because some 16 year old can do it makes it ok? If a hacker does do that it is illegal and prosecutable. I hate to break it to you but a large portion of the net is expected and programmed to be private. And how do you know that the FBI won't be granted that ability? It is being done to save us you know?

what is an open sourced communication? :scratch:


The only parts of the net that are expected to be private are secure web sites (e-commerce, bank transactions, etc.)...which are a very small portion. E-mail, chatrooms, and IM are never expected to be private and you would have to be a fool to think they are.

Oz
03-13-2004, 03:29 PM
The only parts of the net that are expected to be private are secure web sites (e-commerce, bank transactions, etc.)...which are a very small portion. E-mail, chatrooms, and IM are never expected to be private and you would have to be a fool to think they are.

do you see anywhere in the report that says secure connections won't be under this umbrella? are you ok with your broadband connection costs raised so the FBI can tap your line based on keywords you might mistakenly type in not realizing you're suddenly being tagged?

are you a battered woman that just takes stuff like this now?

alter-ego69
03-13-2004, 03:45 PM
Do you see anywhere in the report that says they will tap secure web sites? Their main concern is communication over the internet...e-mail, chatrooms, IM, and the newest form of communication - telephone service over the internet.

I'm not all that thrilled about it but, welcome to the post 9/11 world. You can thank the towelheads for this because none of this would be happening if it weren't for 9/11.

Oz
03-13-2004, 03:50 PM
Do you see anywhere in the report that says they will tap secure web sites? Their main concern is communication over the internet...e-mail, chatrooms, IM, and the newest form of communication - telephone service over the internet.

I'm not all that thrilled about it but, welcome to the post 9/11 world. You can thank the towelheads for this because none of this would be happening if it weren't for 9/11.

my point is that there is nothing in there that says they won't do it and its a natural progression - you know no better than I do -

are you worried about all tech and data-warehousing being shipped overseas? do you trust the 300 million "towel heads" in India that probably already have your personal info at your fingertips? You can thank corp America for that - you'll see when you see orders for mass quantities of curry on your credit cards -

this is an extreme step - pretty soon we'll all be working for the FBI - don't forget this is how we fucked Russia up by outspending them for security - this is how the "towel heads" will win -

JoeyBoots
03-13-2004, 04:04 PM
Anything like this that the gov't proposes now I am against as I see them taking advantage of the post-911 enviroment to also push their Christian based Talibanesque agenda and new world development based on their puritan ethics.....fuck 'em. :ps:

KolostomyKen
03-13-2004, 07:10 PM
Altered- ego has relinquished his personal responsibility, to protect himself and his family, to government. I believe it is part of, what Stern says is. the 'feminisation of America.' One more 911 and people will be lining up to give away their personal freedoms and privacy. I'm sure a-ego finds nothing wrong with the current "sneek and peek" provision in the Patriot Act. This is where the FBI can enter your home while you are away, look around and leave. The current warrant process doesn't apply. There is a town in my state currently rejecting the authority of the Pat Act and challenging it in court. It's all about personal responsibility reflected in local govt. People don't realise that your county sheriff can either give or NOT give permission for Federal agents to come in to your county and arrest citizens. Thats the way the Republic was set up. (of course most sheriffs don't know that or don't have the balls) It prevents foreign and domestic enemies from knocking down your door when they please. Thats being changed now in the name of drugs and terrorism.

Oz
03-13-2004, 07:54 PM
Altered- ego has relinquished his personal responsibility, to protect himself and his family, to government. I believe it is part of, what Stern says is. the 'feminisation of America.' One more 911 and people will be lining up to give away their personal freedoms and privacy. I'm sure a-ego finds nothing wrong with the current "sneek and peek" provision in the Patriot Act. This is where the FBI can enter your home while you are away, look around and leave. The current warrant process doesn't apply. There is a town in my state currently rejecting the authority of the Pat Act and challenging it in court. It's all about personal responsibility reflected in local govt. People don't realise that your county sheriff can either give or NOT give permission for Federal agents to come in to your county and arrest citizens. Thats the way the Republic was set up. (of course most sheriffs don't know that or don't have the balls) It prevents foreign and domestic enemies from knocking down your door when they please. Thats being changed now in the name of drugs and terrorism.

Ken some want to be spoon fed their safety and make excuses - here is a quote that as Americans we should never forget -

good ol' Benny Franklin

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Gerry Lincoln
03-13-2004, 08:16 PM
Ken some want to be spoon fed their safety and make excuses - here is a quote that as Americans we should never forget -

good ol' Benny Franklin

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

and in the end they’ll have neither.

Oz
03-13-2004, 08:20 PM
and in the end they’ll have neither.

damn GL - thanks I forgot that part - probably the most important -

PS - check your email when you have time - :hw:

Gerry Lincoln
03-13-2004, 08:36 PM
PS - check your email when you have time - :hw:
J’ai repondé...

Oz
03-13-2004, 08:43 PM
J’ai repondé...

tres chouette

back to the matter at hand - the FCC sucks

Dr.Gonzo
03-13-2004, 08:46 PM
the FCC sucks


WATCH IT!!!. . .The Fellowship might be lurking outside your windows. . . :uhoh:

neoufo51
03-13-2004, 10:25 PM
8 months is long enough for people to figure out that the Bush administration has to pay for this. Fuck the FCC, religious right, and Bush administration!!! :mad:

Jake7NC
03-14-2004, 12:14 AM
AOL has over 35 million subscribers. MSN has over 9 million. Then there is earthlink, and all the cable and DSL subscribers. Plus the other companies here and abroad. With these new powers it will be easy for the 10,000 or so FBI agents to drop everything they do, and just read all the email, all the chat rooms, and IM's. I think we should all seriously considered just doing like Osama Bin Laden and shun all forms of hi-tech communications and resort to communicating by human courrier. You just can;t be too careful with Big Brother watching all 280 million Americans 24/7.

mikemd2
03-16-2004, 04:43 AM
I just dropped a " Duce " and it looke just like Collin Powell,,,I mean a colon pile

Mutt
03-16-2004, 11:46 AM
just stuck this on the homepage and quoted the whole article. Sure FCC, go ahead and watch everything I do. imstant messages, email, what websites I vist, what porn I download, what music I'm stealling. Go ahead it's fine with me. I don't mind my every freedom being ripped from me.

are they allowed to read the postal mail we send? No, so why would it be ok to read this? the world is going crazy.

next it will be stamps on email. one day I'll be talking to the kids and I'll tell that about the good old days when the internet was free and the man wasn't watching us in our homes.

soon TV, radio, phone, and internet will be all the same thing. I supposed the'll be allowed to monitor it all.

Jake7NC
03-16-2004, 05:21 PM
one day I'll be talking to the kids and I'll tell that about the good old days when the internet was free and the man wasn't watching us in our homes.

Why you want to lie to your kids? First, I don't know about you but I pay $54 a month to access the internet via an AOL cable modem.

Second, the man ain't got time to watch you in your home. He's too busy goofin off. You obviously have never been a government employee. None of em work past 5 nor on the weekends. Overtime is virtually unheard of as a government employee.

Think about it.

Oz
03-16-2004, 06:47 PM
Why you want to lie to your kids? First, I don't know about you but I pay $54 a month to access the internet via an AOL cable modem.

Second, the man ain't got time to watch you in your home. He's too busy goofin off. You obviously have never been a government employee. None of em work past 5 nor on the weekends. Overtime is virtually unheard of as a government employee.

Think about it.

there will be nobody "watching" you - its all about keywords and keystrokes - put together the right words and see what happens -

Jake7NC
03-16-2004, 07:01 PM
there will be nobody "watching" you - its all about keywords and keystrokes - put together the right words and see what happens -

You put them together first. Besides I don't know what the right words are. Although someone in another post was discussing the presidential succession line which seemed dangerous.

But if tell me what they are, I will give it a try. I am not so smart as you as the inner workings of the government. So help me out.