White House Wants to Make It Easier To Wiretap Internet

[TampaYankee]

U.S. Works To Make Internet Wiretaps Easier

| 09/27/10 08:49 AM | AP

WASHINGTON — Broad new regulations being drafted by the Obama administration would make it easier for law enforcement and national security officials to eavesdrop on Internet and e-mail communications like social networking Web sites and BlackBerries, The New York Times reported Monday.

The newspaper said the White House plans to submit a bill next year that would require all online services that enable communications to be technically equipped to comply with a wiretap order. That would include providers of encrypted e-mail, such as BlackBerry, networking sites like Facebook and direct communication services like Skype.

Federal law enforcement and national security officials say new the regulations are needed because terrorists and criminals are increasingly giving up their phones to communicate online.

"We're talking about lawfully authorized intercepts," said FBI lawyer Valerie E. Caproni. "We're not talking about expanding authority. We're talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security."

The White House plans to submit the proposed legislation to Congress next year.

The new regulations would raise new questions about protecting people's privacy while balancing national security concerns.

James Dempsey, the vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the new regulations would have "huge implications."

"They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function," he told the Times.

The Times said the Obama proposal would likely include several requires:

-Any service that provides encrypted messages must be capable of unscrambling them.

-Any foreign communications providers that do business in the U.S. would have to have an office in the United States that's capable of providing intercepts.

-Software developers of peer-to-peer communications services would be required to redesign their products to allow interception.

The Times said that some privacy and technology advocates say the regulations would create weaknesses in the technology that hackers could more easily exploit.

See original article at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/27/internet-wiretaps-would-b_n_740064.html

[TampaYankee]

"We're talking about lawfully authorized intercepts," said FBI lawyer Valerie E. Caproni.

We've heard that before. Yeah, lawful after ex-post-facto legislation made them legal.

Rupublicans, Democrats... what's the difference??

[Guest Matrix]

Rupublicans, Democrats... what's the difference??

Irresponsible Spin

[lookin]

I think the issue goes well beyond party affiliations. In my opinion, it goes to the heart of what we U. S. citizens are prepared to give up, just on the government's say so.

We know a bunch about one side of the equation: giving up privacy is a one-way road. It doesn't come back again. Plus, a little invasion of privacy is always followed by a little more. It's been a long time since anyone in the government, Republican or Democrat, has said, "We finally have enough information; we don't need any more." The cost side of the equation seems clear to me.

It's the benefit side of the equation that I am not at all clear on: what do we get in return? Just for grins, let's say that every email, text, twitter, and tweet was instantly decrypted and scrolled across the bottom of every TV screen in the country, and let's say that every single phone conversation was tapped and blared from loudspeakers in the center of towns all across America. Would anyone from the government step up and say. "At last! We've now got the tools to stop terrorism in its tracks!"?

Of course not. Instead, with each new incursion on privacy, we get federal folderol like: "We're talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security." What the hell does that even mean? Is it worth trading our remaining pockets of privacy for?

I understand we got hit hard on 9/11, and I understand that we're all willing to pay a price to keep it from happening again. But I think it's now time to begin the cost-benefit discussion on how much we give up and for what return. Voluntary silence at this point, I'm afraid, can lead to enforced silence down the road.

For the most part, Republicans and Democrats alike are tagging along and not asking the questions that desperately need asking. I think it's up to us, as U. S. citizens, to challenge our elected officials to engage in this debate, to open discussions with those around us, and to support private groups who are taking the privacy issue seriously. If we leave it up to the politicians, I think the anti-privacy laws will be in place long before we realize what we've lost.

[/rant]

[TotallyOz]

Lookin, nicely said.

[manticore]

Guess which Senator sponsored a bill (that didn't become law) in 1994, saying (among other things)

It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other communications when appropriately authorized by law.

That was around the time the US government aspired to impose compromised encryption technology on telecom equipment makers, but that attempt (fortunately) went nowhere.

I have no idea whether a new initiative will go any farther. It makes so little sense. Encryption is easy to implement and is widely used, generally for the benefit of society (e.g., secure transactions over the web).

It was Joe Biden who introduced that bill in 1994.

[BiBottomBoy]

There will be free downloads to hack the phones and block the wiretapping within a week of tap enabled phones coming out.

Hackers will always be smarter and more determined than the government.

Plus, anyone using their cell phone for criminal activity is using a burner anyway.

This is all scare and no substance.