FCC Approves Net-wiretapping Taxes

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by sally, May 4, 2006.

  1. sally

    sally Guest

    FCC approves Net-wiretapping taxes
    By Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache
    Staff Writer, CNET News.com

    Published: May 3, 2006, 10:53 AM PDT
    Last modified: May 3, 2006, 1:11 PM PDT

    update WASHINGTON--Broadband providers and Internet phone companies
    will have to pick up the tab for the cost of building in mandatory
    wiretap access for police surveillance, federal regulators ruled
    Wednesday.

    The Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously to levy what
    likely will amount to wiretapping taxes on companies, municipalities
    and universities, saying it would create an incentive for them to keep
    costs down and that it was necessary to fight the war on terror.
    Universities have estimated their cost to be about $7 billion.

    "The first obligation is...the safety of the people," said FCC
    Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat. "This commission supports
    efforts to protect the public safety and homeland security of the
    United States and its people."

    Federal police agencies have spent years lobbying for mandatory
    backdoors for easy surveillance, saying "criminals, terrorists and
    spies" could cloak their Internet communications with impunity unless
    centralized wiretapping hubs become mandatory. Last year, the FCC set
    a deadline of May 14, 2007, for compliance. But universities,
    libraries and some technology companies have filed suit against the
    agency, and arguments before a federal court are scheduled for Friday.
    "We're going to have a lot of fights over cost reimbursement," Al
    Gidari, a partner at the law firm of Perkins Coie, who is co-counsel
    in the lawsuit, said in an interview after the vote. "It continues the
    lunacy of their prior order and confirms they've learned nothing from
    what's been filed" in the lawsuit, he said.

    The original 1994 law, called the Communications Assistance for Law
    Enforcement Act, or CALEA, authorized $500 million to pay
    telecommunications carriers for the cost of upgrading their networks
    to facilitate wiretapping. Some broadband and voice over Internet
    Protocol (VoIP) providers had hoped that they'd be reimbursed as well.
    Jonathan Askin, general counsel of Pulver.com, likened Wednesday's
    vote to earlier FCC rules extending 911 regulations to VoIP. "It
    essentially imposed a mandate on the industry without giving the
    industry the necessary support to abide by the rules--and the same
    thing seems to be happening here," Askin said.

    Even without the CALEA regulations, police have the legal authority to
    conduct Internet wiretaps--that's precisely what the FBI's Carnivore
    system was designed to do. Still, the FBI has argued, the need for
    "standardized broadband intercept capabilities is especially urgent in
    light of today's heightened threats to homeland security and the
    ongoing tendency of criminals to use the most clandestine modes of
    communication."

    The American Council on Education, which represents 1,800 colleges and
    universities, estimates that the costs of CALEA compliance could total
    roughly $7 billion for the entire higher-education community, or a
    tuition hike of $450 for every student in the nation. Documents filed
    in the lawsuit challenging the FCC's rules put the cost at hundreds of
    dollars per student.

    But during Wednesday's vote, commissioners dismissed those concerns as
    unfounded. "I am not persuaded merely by largely speculative
    allegations that the financial burden on the higher-education
    community could total billions of dollars," said FCC Commissioner
    Deborah Taylor Tate, a Republican.

    The FCC's initial ruling last fall had left open the question of
    whether broadband and VoIP providers would be reimbursed for rewiring
    their networks and upgrading equipment to comply with CALEA.

    Another open question is what portion of a university's or library's
    network must be rendered wiretap-friendly. One possibility is that
    only the pipe (or pipes) connecting a school with the rest of the
    Internet must be made CALEA-compliant. Another is that the entire
    network would be covered.

    The FCC adopted its second order on Wednesday but released only a
    two-page summary, which didn't offer much clarity. In its initial
    ruling last year, the FCC said only that it had reached "no
    conclusions" about exactly what universities and libraries would have
    to do, prompting a flurry of comments filed with the agency and the
    federal lawsuit. (Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Sun Microsystems,
    the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Democracy and
    Technology, the American Library Association, the American Council on
    Education and VoIP firm Pulver.com.)

    Commissioner Copps acknowledged that there is "still some clarity to
    be provided" for library and university network operators, but he
    suggested that additional clarity would not be forthcoming from the
    FCC. Instead, "all those agencies and offices of government who are
    involved in CALEA implementation should be working together to provide
    clarity there to avoid confusion and possibly expenses for these
    institutions," Copps said.

    At the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference here Wednesday, John
    Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology said libraries and
    universities are still left with more questions than answers.

    "There's some serious uncertainty about how it will really play out
    for universities," Morris said. Even if the FCC technically calls for
    Internet interception at the edge of a campus network, that likely
    won't be enough to satisfy law enforcement demands for all of an
    individual student's network traffic, including on-campus activities,
    he added.

    Injecting additional uncertainty is whether the FCC's action is legal.
    It represents what critics call an unreasonable extension of
    CALEA--which was designed to address telephone features such as
    three-way calling and call waiting--to the Internet.

    A House of Representatives committee report (click here for PDF)
    prepared in October 1994 emphatically says CALEA's requirements "do
    not apply to information services such as electronic-mail services; or
    online services such as CompuServe, Prodigy, America Online or Mead
    Data (Central); or to Internet service providers."

    When Congress was debating CALEA, then-FBI Director Louis Freeh
    reassured nervous senators that the law would be limited to telephone
    calls. "So what we are looking for is strictly telephone--what is said
    over a telephone?" Sen. Larry Pressler, R-S.D., asked during one
    hearing.

    Freeh replied: "That is the way I understand it. Yes, sir."

    Two of the four FCC commissioners who voted for the initial CALEA
    ruling last fall acknowledged that the federal government was on shaky
    legal ground. The FCC's regulation is based on arguing that the law's
    definition of "telecommunications carrier" applies to broadband and
    VoIP providers.

    Then-FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy, a Republican, said, "Because
    litigation is as inevitable as death and taxes, and because some might
    not read the statute to permit the extension of CALEA to the broadband
    Internet access and VoIP services at issue here, I have stated my
    concern that an approach like the one we adopt today is not without
    legal risk."

    The FCC is no stranger to having its decisions rejected by a federal
    appeals court that can be hostile to what it views as regulatory
    overreaching. Last May, for instance, the FCC's "broadcast flag" was
    unceremoniously tossed out by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
    Circuit.

    http://news.com.com/FCC approves Net-wiretapping taxes/2100-1028_3-6067971.html?tag=nefd.lede
    --
     
    sally, May 4, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. sally

    Imhotep Guest

    sally wrote:

    >
    >
    > FCC approves Net-wiretapping taxes
    > By Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache
    > Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    >
    > Published: May 3, 2006, 10:53 AM PDT
    > Last modified: May 3, 2006, 1:11 PM PDT
    >
    > update WASHINGTON--Broadband providers and Internet phone companies
    > will have to pick up the tab for the cost of building in mandatory
    > wiretap access for police surveillance, federal regulators ruled
    > Wednesday.
    >
    > The Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously to levy what
    > likely will amount to wiretapping taxes on companies, municipalities
    > and universities, saying it would create an incentive for them to keep
    > costs down and that it was necessary to fight the war on terror.
    > Universities have estimated their cost to be about $7 billion.
    >
    > "The first obligation is...the safety of the people," said FCC
    > Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat. "This commission supports
    > efforts to protect the public safety and homeland security of the
    > United States and its people."
    >
    > Federal police agencies have spent years lobbying for mandatory
    > backdoors for easy surveillance, saying "criminals, terrorists and
    > spies" could cloak their Internet communications with impunity unless
    > centralized wiretapping hubs become mandatory. Last year, the FCC set
    > a deadline of May 14, 2007, for compliance. But universities,
    > libraries and some technology companies have filed suit against the
    > agency, and arguments before a federal court are scheduled for Friday.
    > "We're going to have a lot of fights over cost reimbursement," Al
    > Gidari, a partner at the law firm of Perkins Coie, who is co-counsel
    > in the lawsuit, said in an interview after the vote. "It continues the
    > lunacy of their prior order and confirms they've learned nothing from
    > what's been filed" in the lawsuit, he said.
    >
    > The original 1994 law, called the Communications Assistance for Law
    > Enforcement Act, or CALEA, authorized $500 million to pay
    > telecommunications carriers for the cost of upgrading their networks
    > to facilitate wiretapping. Some broadband and voice over Internet
    > Protocol (VoIP) providers had hoped that they'd be reimbursed as well.
    > Jonathan Askin, general counsel of Pulver.com, likened Wednesday's
    > vote to earlier FCC rules extending 911 regulations to VoIP. "It
    > essentially imposed a mandate on the industry without giving the
    > industry the necessary support to abide by the rules--and the same
    > thing seems to be happening here," Askin said.
    >
    > Even without the CALEA regulations, police have the legal authority to
    > conduct Internet wiretaps--that's precisely what the FBI's Carnivore
    > system was designed to do. Still, the FBI has argued, the need for
    > "standardized broadband intercept capabilities is especially urgent in
    > light of today's heightened threats to homeland security and the
    > ongoing tendency of criminals to use the most clandestine modes of
    > communication."
    >
    > The American Council on Education, which represents 1,800 colleges and
    > universities, estimates that the costs of CALEA compliance could total
    > roughly $7 billion for the entire higher-education community, or a
    > tuition hike of $450 for every student in the nation. Documents filed
    > in the lawsuit challenging the FCC's rules put the cost at hundreds of
    > dollars per student.
    >
    > But during Wednesday's vote, commissioners dismissed those concerns as
    > unfounded. "I am not persuaded merely by largely speculative
    > allegations that the financial burden on the higher-education
    > community could total billions of dollars," said FCC Commissioner
    > Deborah Taylor Tate, a Republican.
    >
    > The FCC's initial ruling last fall had left open the question of
    > whether broadband and VoIP providers would be reimbursed for rewiring
    > their networks and upgrading equipment to comply with CALEA.
    >
    > Another open question is what portion of a university's or library's
    > network must be rendered wiretap-friendly. One possibility is that
    > only the pipe (or pipes) connecting a school with the rest of the
    > Internet must be made CALEA-compliant. Another is that the entire
    > network would be covered.
    >
    > The FCC adopted its second order on Wednesday but released only a
    > two-page summary, which didn't offer much clarity. In its initial
    > ruling last year, the FCC said only that it had reached "no
    > conclusions" about exactly what universities and libraries would have
    > to do, prompting a flurry of comments filed with the agency and the
    > federal lawsuit. (Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Sun Microsystems,
    > the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Democracy and
    > Technology, the American Library Association, the American Council on
    > Education and VoIP firm Pulver.com.)
    >
    > Commissioner Copps acknowledged that there is "still some clarity to
    > be provided" for library and university network operators, but he
    > suggested that additional clarity would not be forthcoming from the
    > FCC. Instead, "all those agencies and offices of government who are
    > involved in CALEA implementation should be working together to provide
    > clarity there to avoid confusion and possibly expenses for these
    > institutions," Copps said.
    >
    > At the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference here Wednesday, John
    > Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology said libraries and
    > universities are still left with more questions than answers.
    >
    > "There's some serious uncertainty about how it will really play out
    > for universities," Morris said. Even if the FCC technically calls for
    > Internet interception at the edge of a campus network, that likely
    > won't be enough to satisfy law enforcement demands for all of an
    > individual student's network traffic, including on-campus activities,
    > he added.
    >
    > Injecting additional uncertainty is whether the FCC's action is legal.
    > It represents what critics call an unreasonable extension of
    > CALEA--which was designed to address telephone features such as
    > three-way calling and call waiting--to the Internet.
    >
    > A House of Representatives committee report (click here for PDF)
    > prepared in October 1994 emphatically says CALEA's requirements "do
    > not apply to information services such as electronic-mail services; or
    > online services such as CompuServe, Prodigy, America Online or Mead
    > Data (Central); or to Internet service providers."
    >
    > When Congress was debating CALEA, then-FBI Director Louis Freeh
    > reassured nervous senators that the law would be limited to telephone
    > calls. "So what we are looking for is strictly telephone--what is said
    > over a telephone?" Sen. Larry Pressler, R-S.D., asked during one
    > hearing.
    >
    > Freeh replied: "That is the way I understand it. Yes, sir."
    >
    > Two of the four FCC commissioners who voted for the initial CALEA
    > ruling last fall acknowledged that the federal government was on shaky
    > legal ground. The FCC's regulation is based on arguing that the law's
    > definition of "telecommunications carrier" applies to broadband and
    > VoIP providers.
    >
    > Then-FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy, a Republican, said, "Because
    > litigation is as inevitable as death and taxes, and because some might
    > not read the statute to permit the extension of CALEA to the broadband
    > Internet access and VoIP services at issue here, I have stated my
    > concern that an approach like the one we adopt today is not without
    > legal risk."
    >
    > The FCC is no stranger to having its decisions rejected by a federal
    > appeals court that can be hostile to what it views as regulatory
    > overreaching. Last May, for instance, the FCC's "broadcast flag" was
    > unceremoniously tossed out by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
    > Circuit.
    >
    >

    http://news.com.com/FCC approves Net-wiretapping taxes/2100-1028_3-6067971.html?tag=nefd.lede
    > --




    ....welcome to Nazi America....
     
    Imhotep, May 5, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. sally

    Vanguard Guest

    "sally" <@int.net> wrote in message news:pGu6g.315$...
    <snip>
    > update WASHINGTON--Broadband providers and Internet phone companies
    > will have to pick up the tab for the cost of building in mandatory
    > wiretap access for police surveillance, federal regulators ruled
    > Wednesday.


    <snip>

    So how is logging, tapping, or otherwise retrieving the traffic from an
    SSL connection going to help the police? It's encrypted. Seems the
    gov't is so far behind technology. Sites that will want to keep their
    conversations secret will start using SSL. Or users that are concerned
    about their traffic being monitored at their ISP will start using
    anonymizing proxies that provide SSL connects. More users may finally
    get pushed off their butts to start using certs to encrypt their
    e-mails. Users will just end up securing their communications to thwart
    the spying.

    --
    __________________________________________________
    Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
    For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
    __________________________________________________
     
    Vanguard, May 5, 2006
    #3
  4. sally

    paddy Guest

    Vanguard wrote:
    > "sally" <@int.net> wrote in message news:pGu6g.315$...
    > <snip>
    >> update WASHINGTON--Broadband providers and Internet phone companies
    >> will have to pick up the tab for the cost of building in mandatory
    >> wiretap access for police surveillance, federal regulators ruled
    >> Wednesday.

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > So how is logging, tapping, or otherwise retrieving the traffic from an
    > SSL connection going to help the police? It's encrypted. Seems the
    > gov't is so far behind technology. Sites that will want to keep their
    > conversations secret will start using SSL. Or users that are concerned
    > about their traffic being monitored at their ISP will start using
    > anonymizing proxies that provide SSL connects. More users may finally
    > get pushed off their butts to start using certs to encrypt their
    > e-mails. Users will just end up securing their communications to thwart
    > the spying.
    >

    Anomious browsers, proxies,encryption etc don't mean a thing.
    The Appliance is at every outgoing server and intercepted before it goes
    anywhere. They have all the encryption keys. No one can sell a program,
    os, or whatever without their input and approval.
    Welcome to the Police State where everyone is a potential threat and
    unmonitored speech is prohibited.
     
    paddy, May 5, 2006
    #4
  5. sally

    zadoc Guest

    On Fri, 05 May 2006 04:46:46 -0700, paddy <o'rocker@.nl> wrote in
    <DWG6g.176$> :

    |>Vanguard wrote:
    |>> "sally" <@int.net> wrote in message news:pGu6g.315$...
    |>> <snip>
    |>>> update WASHINGTON--Broadband providers and Internet phone companies
    |>>> will have to pick up the tab for the cost of building in mandatory
    |>>> wiretap access for police surveillance, federal regulators ruled
    |>>> Wednesday.
    |>>
    |>> <snip>
    |>>
    |>> So how is logging, tapping, or otherwise retrieving the traffic from an
    |>> SSL connection going to help the police? It's encrypted. Seems the
    |>> gov't is so far behind technology. Sites that will want to keep their
    |>> conversations secret will start using SSL. Or users that are concerned
    |>> about their traffic being monitored at their ISP will start using
    |>> anonymizing proxies that provide SSL connects. More users may finally
    |>> get pushed off their butts to start using certs to encrypt their
    |>> e-mails. Users will just end up securing their communications to thwart
    |>> the spying.
    |>>
    |>Anomious browsers, proxies,encryption etc don't mean a thing.
    |>The Appliance is at every outgoing server and intercepted before it goes
    |>anywhere. They have all the encryption keys. No one can sell a program,
    |>os, or whatever without their input and approval.
    |>Welcome to the Police State where everyone is a potential threat and
    |>unmonitored speech is prohibited.

    Um, "prohibited" or "monitored"? There is, of course, a
    difference.

    In the early days of Amateur or "Ham" radio, for example, there
    was a definite distinction between "codes" and "ciphers".

    And there still is, incidentally.... Very basically, a "code"
    word or phrase can mean anything. The BBC could have indicated
    the imminent landing of allied troops on European beaches by
    playing the song "The Saints Go Marching In" at a particular time
    on a particular program on a particular set of frequencies.

    This is a simple example of a prearranged "code".

    A cipher, on the other hand just rearranges letters and is much
    more flexible "Allied landing tomorrow 0700" might become "allie
    dland ingto momor roatz erose venhu ndred hoursf"

    Now this isn't like to fool anyone just because it has been
    broken into 5 character groups.

    Those using Forte Agent might want to highlight it, then use the
    ROT13 encypherment under edit|ROT13 when it then becomes

    nyyvr qynaq vatgb zbzbe ebngm rebfr irauh aqerq ubhef

    However, this alphabetic rotation isn't going to fool many people
    these days. Maybe a couple of centuries ago.

    OK, this is an extremely basic example of an example between a
    code and a cypher.

    Codes can express almost anything in small groups, but they
    aren't very flexible. A century ago most were used to reduce
    telegraphic and cable costs in transmission, not to conceal
    information.

    The following info is in from an old codebook. Anyone else on
    the group have a copy?

    coloc fiyav ulweh corge apufk coloc vylze kujwa

    Codes can come in many forms, of course. Photos can contain
    coded info in slight displacement or color of pixels to contain
    copyright info...or any other info, for that matter.

    So just how do we define censorship in terms of what could or
    should be censored, but more importantly how could it be
    enforced?

    Cheers,
     
    zadoc, May 5, 2006
    #5
  6. sally

    zadoc Guest

    On Fri, 5 May 2006 04:59:12 -0500, "Vanguard"
    <> wrote in
    <> :

    |>"sally" <@int.net> wrote in message news:pGu6g.315$...
    |><snip>
    |>> update WASHINGTON--Broadband providers and Internet phone companies
    |>> will have to pick up the tab for the cost of building in mandatory
    |>> wiretap access for police surveillance, federal regulators ruled
    |>> Wednesday.
    |>
    |><snip>
    |>
    |>So how is logging, tapping, or otherwise retrieving the traffic from an
    |>SSL connection going to help the police? It's encrypted.

    And whatever can be encrypted can be decrypted. Who has the
    better gear, you or the LEO's.

    |> Seems the
    |>gov't is so far behind technology. Sites that will want to keep their
    |>conversations secret will start using SSL. Or users that are concerned
    |>about their traffic being monitored at their ISP will start using
    |>anonymizing proxies that provide SSL connects. More users may finally
    |>get pushed off their butts to start using certs to encrypt their
    |>e-mails. Users will just end up securing their communications to thwart
    |>the spying.

    Yep, and all any of the above will do is attract attention, such
    as smearing mud on your car license plate so it cannot be read.
    :)

    Or wearing a Halloween mask when you visit your local bank. :)

    Do any of you really think that using cyphers or codes these days
    will do anything except attract extreme attention from the law
    enforcement authorities?

    Sure, there may be a mere desire for privacy between a couple of
    teenagers...but on the other hand it could be a plan for a
    terrorist attack.

    The same applies to hackers and crackers. Sure, it may be "fun"
    or a "challenge" to hack into a government or military computer
    system.

    It can also be a challenge to withstand the pressure of whatever
    facility you are imprisoned in.

    Do try to get "real", people! There are some very real
    terrorist risks, and encyphered or encoded correspondence is
    going to attract a lot of attention these days.

    I would suggest that you learn to live with it and not play silly
    games on the net.

    Consider that the government could close the whole thing down, if
    they wanted to, just as the amateur radio service was closed down
    in WW2.

    Comments, anyone?
    Cheers,
     
    zadoc, May 5, 2006
    #6
  7. sally

    donnie Guest

    On Fri, 5 May 2006 04:59:12 -0500, "Vanguard"
    <> wrote:

    >So how is logging, tapping, or otherwise retrieving the traffic from an
    >SSL connection going to help the police? It's encrypted. Seems the
    >gov't is so far behind technology. Sites that will want to keep their
    >conversations secret will start using SSL. Or users that are concerned
    >about their traffic being monitored at their ISP will start using
    >anonymizing proxies that provide SSL connects. More users may finally
    >get pushed off their butts to start using certs to encrypt their
    >e-mails. Users will just end up securing their communications to thwart
    >the spying.

    ###########################################
    We don't know how much of the encryption the government can crack. My
    guess would be they can't crack whatever is still illegal to export.
    I don't know what the current law permits.
     
    donnie, May 5, 2006
    #7
  8. sally

    Guest

    What if they ("they" meaning the bureaucrats in D.C. [D.C. now standing
    for Dickhead Central]) decide that people who use Linux use Linux in an
    attempt to undermine their ability to wiretap, and use that as an
    excuse to make Linux illegal? :)
     
    , May 6, 2006
    #8
  9. sally

    Imhotep Guest

    Vanguard wrote:

    > "sally" <@int.net> wrote in message news:pGu6g.315$...
    > <snip>
    >> update WASHINGTON--Broadband providers and Internet phone companies
    >> will have to pick up the tab for the cost of building in mandatory
    >> wiretap access for police surveillance, federal regulators ruled
    >> Wednesday.

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > So how is logging, tapping, or otherwise retrieving the traffic from an
    > SSL connection going to help the police? It's encrypted. Seems the
    > gov't is so far behind technology. Sites that will want to keep their
    > conversations secret will start using SSL. Or users that are concerned
    > about their traffic being monitored at their ISP will start using
    > anonymizing proxies that provide SSL connects. More users may finally
    > get pushed off their butts to start using certs to encrypt their
    > e-mails. Users will just end up securing their communications to thwart
    > the spying.
    >


    So you really think that a Gov with billions in resources can't crack SSL?
    Why do you think there are Gov organizations like the NSA? Why do you think
    they, the NSA, have one of the largest collection of Supercomputers in the
    World? It is not to play video games....

    In either case, we are getting off topic. I reason I posted this was I have
    begun seeing too many civil liberties being diluted recently and it is
    alarming....

    Im
     
    Imhotep, May 6, 2006
    #9
  10. sally

    Imhotep Guest

    donnie wrote:

    > On Fri, 5 May 2006 04:59:12 -0500, "Vanguard"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>So how is logging, tapping, or otherwise retrieving the traffic from an
    >>SSL connection going to help the police? It's encrypted. Seems the
    >>gov't is so far behind technology. Sites that will want to keep their
    >>conversations secret will start using SSL. Or users that are concerned
    >>about their traffic being monitored at their ISP will start using
    >>anonymizing proxies that provide SSL connects. More users may finally
    >>get pushed off their butts to start using certs to encrypt their
    >>e-mails. Users will just end up securing their communications to thwart
    >>the spying.

    > ###########################################
    > We don't know how much of the encryption the government can crack. My
    > guess would be they can't crack whatever is still illegal to export.
    > I don't know what the current law permits.


    ....don't count on it. I would *guess* that almost all of the encryption
    technologies that we use are already crackable with the use of clustered
    supercomputers...

    Im
     
    Imhotep, May 6, 2006
    #10
  11. sally

    Mr User Guest

    zadoc wrote:
    > Do try to get "real", people! There are some very real
    > terrorist risks, and encyphered or encoded correspondence is
    > going to attract a lot of attention these days.


    You swallow don't you? Hook line etc
    So we should all give up our privacy because some war-mongering fool
    gets elected to govern? The more the merrier I routinely encrypt traffic
    and also routinely leave my footprints in the snow (like this post).
    It's my choice.

    > I would suggest that you learn to live with it and not play silly
    > games on the net.


    It's not a game it's a right! It's called principle!

    > Consider that the government could close the whole thing down, if
    > they wanted to, just as the amateur radio service was closed down
    > in WW2.


    Yes, the could initially but not indefinitely.

    > Comments, anyone?


    Yes, take nanny state out of your vocabulary.
     
    Mr User, May 6, 2006
    #11
  12. sally

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Fri, 05 May 2006 22:46:11 -0400, Imhotep <>
    wrote:

    >...don't count on it. I would *guess* that almost all of the encryption
    >technologies that we use are already crackable with the use of clustered
    >supercomputers...


    Perhaps, however the question is 'at what price' And of course
    the 'bad' guys could always add another layer of complexity by
    for instance speaking arabic which the supercomputers don't
    understand.

    There is the question of what one wishes to achieve, and what
    seems to be in the minds of some of todays Governments is not
    my idea of freedom either.

    The 'red under the bed' has been replaced with a transglobal network
    of terrorists from Al qu'ada - an organisation so widespread,
    insideous and terrible that it justifies taking away all our basic
    freedoms.

    Or so we are told.


    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, May 6, 2006
    #12
  13. sally

    DRosen Guest

    zadoc wrote:

    > And whatever can be encrypted can be decrypted. Who has the
    > better gear, you or the LEO's.


    Perfectly unbreakable encryption does exist, that can't be broken with
    any amount of equipment.

    > Do try to get "real", people! There are some very real
    > terrorist risks, and encyphered or encoded correspondence is
    > going to attract a lot of attention these days.
    >
    > I would suggest that you learn to live with it and not play silly
    > games on the net.


    Privacy and freedom of speech are not "silly games". Arguing for
    tossing them aside for a false sense of security is.
     
    DRosen, May 6, 2006
    #13
  14. sally

    DRosen Guest

    donnie wrote:

    > We don't know how much of the encryption the government can crack. My


    Yes we do. We know exactly how much they can crack. We also know
    there's less resource intense ways to get information, and the fact
    that perfectly unbreakable encryption does exist.

    > guess would be they can't crack whatever is still illegal to export.


    There never was any real ban on crypto export becuse source code was
    always exportable. It's both innefective and unnecessary to ban crypto
    exports, and governments know this. That is why they don't really make
    an effort to legislate against it, or enforce legislation in the very
    rare cases they do pass "feel good" laws.

    Consider for a minute the fact that Windows is a relatively new
    phenomenon, and that for a considerable amount of time before the
    emergence of "personal computers" as a staple almost all software was
    distributed in source code form and compiled on the machine it was to
    be run on. Thre's a large and growing number of even "personal"
    computers where this is still the case.

    Crypto export laws are completely irrelevant and totally unenforcable.
    Just ask a guy named Bruce. ;-)
     
    DRosen, May 6, 2006
    #14
  15. sally

    DRosen Guest

    Imhotep wrote:

    > So you really think that a Gov with billions in resources can't crack SSL?


    Of course they can. We even have a pretty good idea how long it would
    take them. But that's completely irrelevant because they don't have to
    try. SSL encryption is far less vulnerable to attack than SSL protocol,
    or the people who operate servers and hand out certificates. Why waste
    time with a bunch of math when you can circumvent the encryption
    completely and have what you want with no effort at all?

    > Why do you think there are Gov organizations like the NSA? Why do you think
    > they, the NSA, have one of the largest collection of Supercomputers in the
    > World? It is not to play video games....


    No, it's to monitor, collect, and analyze data. We already know their
    capabilities, or at least a theoretical upper limit that most people
    assume. This makes "strong crypto" secure for most uses, but as I said
    above that's completely irrelevant.
     
    DRosen, May 6, 2006
    #15
  16. sally

    Guest

    On Fri, 05 May 2006 22:46:11 -0400, Imhotep <>
    wrote:

    >donnie wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 5 May 2006 04:59:12 -0500, "Vanguard"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>So how is logging, tapping, or otherwise retrieving the traffic from an
    >>>SSL connection going to help the police? It's encrypted. Seems the
    >>>gov't is so far behind technology. Sites that will want to keep their
    >>>conversations secret will start using SSL. Or users that are concerned
    >>>about their traffic being monitored at their ISP will start using
    >>>anonymizing proxies that provide SSL connects. More users may finally
    >>>get pushed off their butts to start using certs to encrypt their
    >>>e-mails. Users will just end up securing their communications to thwart
    >>>the spying.

    >> ###########################################
    >> We don't know how much of the encryption the government can crack. My
    >> guess would be they can't crack whatever is still illegal to export.
    >> I don't know what the current law permits.

    >
    >...don't count on it. I would *guess* that almost all of the encryption
    >technologies that we use are already crackable with the use of clustered
    >supercomputers...


    Or have required back doors as is required of many hard ware
    manufacturers these days.
    ____

    Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are
    putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
     
    , May 6, 2006
    #16
  17. sally

    Jim Watt Guest

    On 6 May 2006 06:59:02 -0700, "DRosen" <> wrote:

    >Crypto export laws are completely irrelevant and totally unenforcable.


    It depends, however you seem to live in lala land where that
    may indeed be the case.

    On the other hand the US Government has effective restrictions on
    crypto hardware, which is still classified as munitions.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, May 6, 2006
    #17
  18. sally

    Unruh Guest

    zadoc <> writes:

    >On Fri, 5 May 2006 04:59:12 -0500, "Vanguard"
    ><> wrote in
    ><> :


    >|>"sally" <@int.net> wrote in message news:pGu6g.315$...
    >|><snip>
    >|>> update WASHINGTON--Broadband providers and Internet phone companies
    >|>> will have to pick up the tab for the cost of building in mandatory
    >|>> wiretap access for police surveillance, federal regulators ruled
    >|>> Wednesday.
    >|>
    >|><snip>
    >|>
    >|>So how is logging, tapping, or otherwise retrieving the traffic from an
    >|>SSL connection going to help the police? It's encrypted.


    >And whatever can be encrypted can be decrypted. Who has the
    >better gear, you or the LEO's.



    And you need to learn a little bit about encryption. It does not matter who
    has better gear, the amount by which the gov't gear would have to better is
    so huge, that the comparison is silly.

    >|> Seems the
    >|>gov't is so far behind technology. Sites that will want to keep their
    >|>conversations secret will start using SSL. Or users that are concerned
    >|>about their traffic being monitored at their ISP will start using
    >|>anonymizing proxies that provide SSL connects. More users may finally
    >|>get pushed off their butts to start using certs to encrypt their
    >|>e-mails. Users will just end up securing their communications to thwart
    >|>the spying.


    >Yep, and all any of the above will do is attract attention, such
    >as smearing mud on your car license plate so it cannot be read.
    >:)


    As always it depends on how many do it. If it as common as wearing white
    shirts, no it will not attract attention. IF you were the only one in your
    state to use it, then it may attract attention. The hypothesis is that many
    start to use it simply because of the gov't actions. It is easy to swamp
    the system.


    >Or wearing a Halloween mask when you visit your local bank. :)


    On Halloween, noone would notice.

    >Do any of you really think that using cyphers or codes these days
    >will do anything except attract extreme attention from the law
    >enforcement authorities?



    Yes.
    SSL for example is sufficiently common due to things line online commerce
    that ssl do NOT attract attention.


    >Sure, there may be a mere desire for privacy between a couple of
    >teenagers...but on the other hand it could be a plan for a
    >terrorist attack.


    So could my smoking a cigar be a terrorist signal. The primary purpose of
    encryption is that the adversary does not know.


    >The same applies to hackers and crackers. Sure, it may be "fun"
    >or a "challenge" to hack into a government or military computer
    >system.


    This has exactly what to do with the topic under discussion?


    >It can also be a challenge to withstand the pressure of whatever
    >facility you are imprisoned in.


    >Do try to get "real", people! There are some very real
    >terrorist risks, and encyphered or encoded correspondence is
    >going to attract a lot of attention these days.



    I think it is you tht needs to get real. IF the gov't actions increase
    theuse of crypto by the public, then the attention that terrorist
    communication draws becomes less and less. Ie, the gov't actions are
    counterproductive.


    >I would suggest that you learn to live with it and not play silly
    >games on the net.


    What games? Protecting yourself from the illegal activities of the gov't is
    not a game.

    >Consider that the government could close the whole thing down, if
    >they wanted to, just as the amateur radio service was closed down
    >in WW2.


    This has got to be one of the silliest statements ever posted. Sure they
    could if they wanted to completely destroy the US economy. That would be
    far far more effective than any terrorist attack, including nuking NY, in
    destroying the USA.


    >Comments, anyone?
    >Cheers,
     
    Unruh, May 6, 2006
    #18
  19. sally

    donnie Guest

    On 6 May 2006 06:59:02 -0700, "DRosen" <> wrote:

    >There never was any real ban on crypto export becuse source code was
    >always exportable.

    _______________________
    Are you sure about that? I heard that souce code to certain
    encryption was banned as if it were a weapon. However, as you said,
    it's unenforcable.
    ______________________
     
    donnie, May 6, 2006
    #19
  20. sally

    TwistyCreek Guest

    Jim Watt wrote:

    > On 6 May 2006 06:59:02 -0700, "DRosen" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Crypto export laws are completely irrelevant and totally unenforcable.

    >
    > It depends, however you seem to live in lala land where that may indeed be
    > the case.
    >
    > On the other hand the US Government has effective restrictions on crypto
    > hardware, which is still classified as munitions.


    ROTFLMAO!

    Strawgrabbing idiot.

    Crypto hardware is covered under the exact same BXA laws crypto software
    is. In fact when you apply for an export license you enter 5D000 instead
    of 5A000 on the request form you incompetent fool.

    What, you found some sort of reference to some military equipment that
    used crypto and ASSumed again?

    LOL!

    Crypto of ANY type hasn't been considered a "munition" since ITAR was
    stricken in 1994, or 2000 when the laws became FULLY effective, depending
    on what hair you want to split.

    You can export crypto software OR hardware anywhere you want as long as
    you pay the fee, and you're not exporting to Iraq, Cuba, or Rwanda as of
    right now. It's all about the money, not the security, although they DO
    require that you submit all the technical shit so they can be sure you're
    not giving away stuff better than Uncle Sam has.

    And there's some restrictions on what Americans can contribute to foreign
    crypto hardware and software.

    But that's IT partner. Sorry Jimbo, you lose AGAIN!
     
    TwistyCreek, May 7, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. /* Microcephalic \Simpson\ Bob */

    OT: how to beat death and taxes [short form]

    /* Microcephalic \Simpson\ Bob */, Sep 28, 2005, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    443
  2. Bill Schowengerdt

    What are British Council taxes?

    Bill Schowengerdt, Oct 4, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    78
    Views:
    1,755
    Brian H¹©
    Oct 9, 2003
  3. Allan
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    615
    Toshi1873
    Dec 2, 2003
  4. Imhotep

    VoIP wiretapping rules to be considered

    Imhotep, Sep 29, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    739
    Jim Watt
    Oct 2, 2005
  5. paddy

    FCC Approves Net-wiretapping Taxes

    paddy, May 4, 2006, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    343
    paddy
    May 4, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page