US Wants To Easily Wiretap Web

[incrediBILL]

[nytimes.com...]

...officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

It's the end of privacy as we know it.

[kaled]

Do people really want mobsters and terrorists to have easy access to communications so secure that governments can't listen in?

Granted, in the US, wire-tap evidence is admissible in court whilst it can only be used for intelligence gathering in the UK, but I really do fail to see why people are so paranoid. Governments and the police are far too stretched to spy on ordinary folk so this is about listening in on bad guys - serious bad guys at that.

Kaled.

[Demaestro]

Governments and the police are far too stretched to spy on ordinary folk so this is about listening in on bad guys - serious bad guys at that.

How do they know who the bad guys are until they spy on their communications? They only need to suspect you of crime to start spying, they do get it wrong from time to time, and the things they learn about you and record about you may be none of their business.

People's sexual orientation may be exposed where they don't want it. There is a lot of reasons for the public to enjoy privacy.

There is abuse, there is always someone in a position to use these things as they see fit. For instance spying on an ex-spouse or partner, of which there are recorded cases. They have spyed on media outlets of which there are recorded cases.

I know catching criminals is hard but they were doing it before wiretapping, I am sure they can continue finding ways of catching bad guys without scooping up good fish in the net.

I simply don't think handing over keys to the data we transfer to the gov is justified.

[motorhaven]

If you message or call is encrypted then it is "obvious" that you have something to hide and need to be watched.

Really? That's pretty simplistic and the world isn't black and white.

There are legitimate reasons for encryption, such as sexual privacy, intellectual property protection from competitors when doing business, family and medical privacy, political views and affiliations, private matters such as the meeting activities of a Masonic lodge, religious matters, etc.

Doing nothing wrong or illegal is not justification for accepting government intrusion. Unless you don't mind the police being able to enter your home without a warrant or without seeing a crime in progress, handing over papers on demand (read up on the restrictions the government has in place concerning DUI check-points), etc.

What's scary, and related (I believe it should be part of this discussion) is right now the government is also proposing access to overseas money transfer information -- not just amounts over $10,000. I don't think its a coincidence. I have off-shore developers... do I really need to be burdened with filling out forms every time I pay them?

[enigma1]

Do people really want mobsters and terrorists to have easy access to communications so secure that governments can't listen in?

The technology is there and they're past that. In fact custom encryption/decryption is extremely easy to implement and no matter how much resources you invest is next to impossible to decode communications. So I don't understand why so much noise about it. And of course at the same time NSA does and will do whatever it wants. Don't expect it to wait for a bill to pass to deploy something. So what is the whole point?

[graeme_p]

Governments and the police are far too stretched to spy on ordinary folk so this is about listening in on bad guys - serious bad guys at that.

The things the "anti-terrorist" surveillance powers have been used for in the UK include catching people who lie to get their kids into a better school, people not picking up their dog's excreta, peaceful environmental activists etc. Which of those are "serious bad guys"?

Also, text communications lend themselves to cheap mass surveillance through automated analysis.

[graeme_p]

Do people really want mobsters and terrorists to have easy access to communications so secure that governments can't listen in?

The mobsters and terrorists will find ways around this. They can set up their own servers, use end to end encryption, etc. It is the law abiding who will lose their privacy.

[kaled]

The things the "anti-terrorist" surveillance powers have been used for in the UK include catching people who lie to get their kids into a better school, people not picking up their dog's excreta, peaceful environmental activists etc. Which of those are "serious bad guys"?

1) No interception of communications have been involved in any of these cases. Such interceptions can only be granted by a judge and will only be granted to the police, and security services (or, in very rare circumstances other agencies such as the fire service when investigating arson).
2) Such abuses of power have now been ruled as such - i.e. abuses.
3) With spending cuts, there will be fewer people with time to waste and less money to waste on such fruitless exercises.

The current proposal does not outlaw encryption of data, it merely requires telcos to use encryption technologies that can be tapped. Consider this scenario...

Acme Telecom implements a messaging system that not even they can crack. They advertise is as so secure, not even the government can tap it but charge big monies. Assuming criminals believe the adverts they will use it and Acme Telecom will make loads of money. Other Telcos will follow suit and force the price down a bit. Criminals will just be laughing themselves silly.

This issue is a serious no-brainer!

Kaled.

[Demaestro]

Such interceptions can only be granted by a judge

I can link you a video of GW Bush saying that wiretaps will only be done with a court order.

After he made that declaration it was revealed that they were tapping phones WITHOUT a judge giving permission.... so they made a law that said they didn't need one.

All of this after being assured by the President of the United States that a judge had to grant wiretaps.

Such abuses of power have now been ruled as such - i.e. abuses.

WRONG, such abuses have been excused by enacting laws that turn abuses (warrantless wiretaps) into an allowed breach of constitutional rights.

This issue is a serious no-brainer

This is a much more complex issue then you are making it out to be. If you weren't aware you should read up on the ironically named "Protect America Act"

[graeme_p]

@ kaled,

1) Plain wrong: [news.bbc.co.uk ]
2) Wrong again. There is no possibility of any ruling against them as it is very clear that they acted within the law. The government HAS promised to reduce some of the more obvious abuses because of public outcry.
3) There will still be plenty. Also, recession will not last for ever, what happens when budgets start increasing.

You are right about one thing. It is a no brainer. It is obvious that every increase in government spying powers has no effect on real bad guys while being open to huge, large scale abuse.

[kaled]

In the UK, with respect to wire taps and RIPA, I believe the only information legally available without a court order does not involve content, i.e. email addresses and telephone numbers are ok. Also, without a court order, you cannot get a wire tap (in the UK). You cannot even record your own telephone conversations without informing the person(s) on the other end.

There is no possibility of any ruling against them as it is very clear that they acted within the law.

Again, you are not talking about wire taps - if you are, let's have a rock solid example. Also, in many cases, it is not clear that abusers acted within the law, it is unclear that they acted outside it - hence lack of action.

I really don't understand why people are getting so excited about this... a)it's going to happen, b)it does not stop anyone using their own encryption, c)this simply winds back our "rights" to the analogue era, i.e. a few years.

Kaled.

[lawman]

Judicial oversight - hmmmm. I wonder how often judges refuse to sign search/wiretap warrants. I suspect the percentage is so small that it's virtually immeasurable.

[bird]

The same applies to at least land line phones

There's a very significant difference here: Now it's supposed to also apply to communication channels that the target audience of this site actually uses!

;)

[piatkow]

If you message or call is encrypted then it is "obvious" that you have something to hide and need to be watched.

Really? That's pretty simplistic and the world isn't black and white.

There are legitimate reasons for encryption,

@motorhaven
There was a reason for the quotation mark, do I really need to put smileys in my posts as well?