PDA

View Full Version : FBI surveillance of e-mail and Web browsing are being challenged in court


|Zach|
10-25-2005, 01:31 PM
New federal wiretapping rules forcing Internet service providers and universities to rewire their networks for FBI surveillance of e-mail and Web browsing are being challenged in court.

Telecommunications firms, nonprofit organizations and educators are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., to overturn the controversial rules, which dramatically extend the sweep of an 11-year-old surveillance law designed to guarantee police the ability to eavesdrop on telephone calls.

The regulations represent the culmination of years of lobbying by the FBI, the Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration, which have argued that "criminals, terrorists and spies" could cloak their Internet communications with impunity unless police received broad new surveillance powers. The final rules, published this month by the Federal Communications Commission, apply to "any type of broadband Internet access service" and many Internet phone services.

"The concern is that what is being proposed is inordinately expensive to achieve the results that the FCC and the Department of Justice would like to secure," said Sheldon Steinbach, general counsel to the American Council on Education, which filed its legal challenge late Monday. The rules are set to take effect in April 2007.

Another legal challenge from businesses and nonprofit groups is set for Tuesday. "The FCC simply does not have the statutory authority to extend the 1994 law for the telephone system to the 21st century Internet," said Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which is joining the second challenge. Also participating are the Center for Democracy and Technology, Pulver.com, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the telecommunications trade group CompTel.

The 1994 law, called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act or CALEA, required telephone companies to rewire their networks and switches to guarantee ready eavesdropping access to police.

That prospect dismays privacy advocates and telecommunications providers who worry about the expense and argue that Congress never intended the law to apply to broadband links. A House of Representatives committee report prepared in October 1994 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; or to Internet service providers."

"Regulating the entire Internet"
The new regulations also are alarming Internet phone service providers.

Jonathan Askin, general counsel to voice over Internet Protocol(VoIP) firm Pulver.com, said that his company is not directly implicated by the regulations because it currently offers only peer-to-peer conversations rather than links to the traditional telephone network. The new rules cover VoIP services that provide a "capability for users to receive calls from and terminate calls" to the phone network.

But that regulatory forbearance may vanish in the future, Askin warned. "From a forward-looking policy perspective, I think the FCC has opened the door to regulating the entire Internet," he said.

Federal police agencies and the FCC did not respond to interview requests on Monday. Department of Justice spokesperson Charles Miller said, "If and when they file suit, I'm sure we'll respond accordingly in court."

The American Civil Liberties Union said it has not yet decided whether to join the lawsuit, saying it's a matter of having enough time for its lawyers to take a new case. "I think there's a very strong statutory argument that the FCC just overreached and doesn't have authority over the industry," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program.

The Information Technology Association of America also said it has not decided whether to join an appeal of the FCC's ruling. "The limits of the authorization that Congress provided are fairly clear and the FCC seems to have gone beyond that," said Mark Uncapher, senior vice president of ITAA.

In an unusual twist, two of the four FCC commissioners who unanimously approved the wiretapping rules last month acknowledged that a court challenge was likely.

Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy 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."

Commissioner Michael Copps warned that if a court case leads to the rules being struck down, the regulations may have done "more harm than good." The FCC's logic, he said, was "built on very complicated legal ground."

The twin appeals being filed this week will follow a two-stage process. First, a very brief notice of appeal will be sent to the court. Then, after the judges decide on a schedule, a formal legal brief will be submitted and the Bush administration will be offered a chance to reply.

CNET News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report .

http://news.com.com/FBI+Net-wiretapping+rules+face+challenges/2100-1028_3-5911676.html?tag=nl

StcChief
10-25-2005, 01:49 PM
Big Brother wants to watch everything, in the name of Homeland security.

Cochise
10-25-2005, 01:50 PM
Big Brother wants to watch everything, in the name of Homeland security.

Yeah, well he also wants to be able to regulate everything, in the name of taxation, so don't be too quick to point your finger in just one direction.

Simplex3
10-25-2005, 01:57 PM
This is another bulls**t reach by the feds. Every time they pull a stunt like this it costs law-abiding citizens and companies millions of dollars to comply and the crooks just ignore the law anyway. This is f**king stupid. Let's say you DO get access to the packets running between my server and I. It still won't do you a bit of f**king good if I have them highly encrypted. I suppose next we need to submit all encryption keys to the feds, right? Screw them.

Lzen
10-25-2005, 01:58 PM
I don't have a problem with the surveillance thing. If they start to tax it, then I'll be pissed.

Lzen
10-25-2005, 01:59 PM
This is another bulls**t reach by the feds. Every time they pull a stunt like this it costs law-abiding citizens and companies millions of dollars to comply and the crooks just ignore the law anyway. This is f**king stupid. Let's say you DO get access to the packets running between my server and I. It still won't do you a bit of f**king good if I have them highly encrypted. I suppose next we need to submit all encryption keys to the feds, right? Screw them.

Yeah, it's not like the feds would have any kind of high tech decryption equipment or anything.

Simplex3
10-25-2005, 02:08 PM
Yeah, it's not like the feds would have any kind of high tech decryption equipment or anything.
While it may be possible to take a highly encrypted email or other file and break it given enough time and resources the ability to do so with streams, like a phone call, simply isn't possible today without recording the entire stream and then sending it as a file to that decryption engine. If something is using high level encryption we're talking days to crack it using the most sophisticated hardware available. Kind of flies in the face of their "immediate access" theory.

This is driven by two groups IMO. People who have no clue what they're talking about and people who eventually want to start taxing the Internet.

SLAG
10-25-2005, 02:30 PM
Wouldnt Taxing the Interenet Be Taxation Without Representation? :shrug:

sedated
10-25-2005, 02:34 PM
Anything goes in George W Bush's America.

BigRedChief
10-25-2005, 02:37 PM
Wouldnt Taxing the Interenet Be Taxation Without Representation? :shrug:

Thats the only argument holding back the floodgates of taxing the internet.

SLAG
10-25-2005, 02:45 PM
Thats the only argument holding back the floodgates of taxing the internet.

Now I dont Know how many other people are smokers here but...

as a Smoker when we buy a pack of smokes the Ciggeretes have a State Tax Stamp stating that tax was paid....

Then we get charged tax again on top of that

What gives:cuss:

unlurking
10-25-2005, 02:45 PM
I suppose next we need to submit all encryption keys to the feds, right? Screw them.
They don't need them.

You will be forced to give session access to your devices, and they can retrieve streams unencrypted. Many hardware vendors have already implemented this actually, including Cisco. They got such a huge backlash from the EFF when their draft intercept MIB was submitted to the IETF, that most of the work is now done "behind closed doors".

Here is a link to the MIB originally submitted by Cisco. (remember this is outdated)

http://www.cisco.com/wwl/regaffairs/lawful_intercept/cisco_tap_mib.txt

BigRedChief
10-25-2005, 02:50 PM
Now I dont Know how many other people are smokers here but...

as a Smoker when we buy a pack of smokes the Ciggeretes have a State Tax Stamp stating that tax was paid....

Then we get charged tax again on top of that

What gives:cuss:

Well since you smoke they figure you must be one stupid person and have lots of money to burn so they just figure what the heck.:p

Bowser
10-25-2005, 02:54 PM
Can't wait to sign up for "Black Market Internet Services"!

Area 51
10-25-2005, 02:58 PM
I think that it doesn't matter if they are looking over your shoulder and you know about it, they've been doing it for years. Because the Patriot Act was passed you now know what is going on, does that make you feel any better?

I doubt that you all realize that big brother has been here for a long time and will remain. Learn to live with your fear of being discovered.

BigRedChief
10-25-2005, 02:59 PM
I think that it doesn't matter if they are looking over your shoulder and you know about it, they've been doing it for years. Because the Patriot Act was passed you now know what is going on, does that make you feel any better?

I doubt that you all realize that big brother has been here for a long time and will remain. Learn to live with your fear of being discovered.

Spoken like a true Patriot!
http://jimallanstudio.com/IMAGES/airbrush_the_patriot.jpg

Area 51
10-25-2005, 03:12 PM
Spoken like a true Patriot!


I did my time in the boy scouts and got kicked out, I did my time for God and Country.

The system has always been in place it's just that we now know about it.

htismaqe
10-25-2005, 03:27 PM
Anything goes in George W Bush's America.

Nice try.

Hillary Clinton and her PMRC were all over this 10 years ago.

unlurking
10-25-2005, 03:31 PM
Nice try.

Hillary Clinton and her PMRC were all over this 10 years ago.
Didn't know Billary was involved with the PMRC, I do remember Tipper though.

Then again, I'm not sure what the PMRC has to do with the invasion of privacy (other than imposing morality based entertainment legislation, they weren't lining up to read your email or anything).

jidar
10-25-2005, 03:40 PM
I'd rather be a Patriot and stand for the rights and liberties of the individual instead of walking lock step with the status quo like a good little Nazi.

Mr. Laz
10-25-2005, 03:43 PM
Nice try.

Hillary Clinton and her PMRC were all over this 10 years ago.

shouldn't you be moving this instead of starting it

htismaqe
10-25-2005, 03:56 PM
Didn't know Billary was involved with the PMRC, I do remember Tipper though.

Then again, I'm not sure what the PMRC has to do with the invasion of privacy (other than imposing morality based entertainment legislation, they weren't lining up to read your email or anything).

Hillary was at the forefront of wanting to establish the ability for the US government to "spy" on the Internet. The original intent of article V of the 1996 TCA (the Communications Decency Act) was to allow the government to hunt down and prosecute "indecency" suck as pornographers, etc. Of course, much of it got stripped out in the process and the entire Article was eradicated by the courts later.

Make no mistake about it, BOTH sides want control over the Internet because it prevents them from being thought controllers. The ends are the same, the means are different. Saving you from terrorists and/or saving your kids from predators are the ruse that they use to get everyone to buy into their Fascist tactics.

htismaqe
10-25-2005, 03:57 PM
shouldn't you be moving this instead of starting it

I didn't start anything. Go whine to someone else if you don't think it's fair.

Garcia Bronco
10-25-2005, 04:21 PM
Hmmmmm we haven't had an attack with the current level. And the fcc is not elected...yet it makes laws....tyranny.

unlurking
10-25-2005, 05:21 PM
Hillary was at the forefront of wanting to establish the ability for the US government to "spy" on the Internet. The original intent of article V of the 1996 TCA (the Communications Decency Act) was to allow the government to hunt down and prosecute "indecency" suck as pornographers, etc. Of course, much of it got stripped out in the process and the entire Article was eradicated by the courts later.

Make no mistake about it, BOTH sides want control over the Internet because it prevents them from being thought controllers. The ends are the same, the means are different. Saving you from terrorists and/or saving your kids from predators are the ruse that they use to get everyone to buy into their Fascist tactics.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I have no love for the democratic party or the Clintons. I just don't remember Hillary being involved with the TCA, will have to go do some "memberin'".

I agree with you, both parties want more power, no matter how they spin it. Similar to closing the border, neither party will ever do anything about it.

Mr. Laz
10-25-2005, 05:36 PM
I didn't start anything. Go whine to someone else if you don't think it's fair.
i love how anyone that bugs you is "whining"






how's that fair thing working out for ya anyway.

Simplex3
10-25-2005, 05:52 PM
And the fcc is not elected...yet it makes laws....tyranny.
Them and the muther-f**king EPA. :cuss: