I'm sorry you guys are right. We shouldn't regulate industry to help the FBI to conduct legal investigations of criminals.
It's not even worth considering in a proposal to the FCC. I should have had a hysterical hissy fit like the rest of you.
While they're at it, maybe the FBI should propose (after all, it would just be a proposal) that all retail establishments use clear plastic shopping bags, so police can more easily see what people are buying and carrying around. Nothing wrong in proposing that, huh?
I mean, it's not like the police would look at what you're buying unless they have a warrant, no, not at all. Besides, good upstanding law abiding citizens have nothing to hide, so it shouldn't matter anyway. Only drug dealers carrying drugs and terrorists carrying bombs in bags wouldn't want clear plastic bags to be the norm.
And geez, it obviously doesn't violate the Bill of Rights to simply to propose mandating clear plastic bags for all shopping activities, so there'd be no good reason to for anyone to fuss.
The response to this surprises me for such a liberal board.
In all honesty, it's probably because your idea of liberal is way out of whack with reality. This lines up with everything I've believed for a long time, and conservatives don't like to admit it.
At the end of the article, there was a related one about Voice Over IP.
As that (sort of) makes sense as the FBI doesn't want to give up any current ability to wiretap once major carriers start offering VOIP, and wants to make sure everyone's ducks are in a row on this - incompatibilities being rooted out before there are a whole whack of different hardware/software setups.
Of course, they will also push it towards electronic text communications. And maybe keeping track of which files you download from where over P2P services. After all, isn't it the FBI that puts up those warnings at the start of every DVD out there?
But the scariest part is the thing about a "back door". Do they really believe someone won't figure out how to crack something like that? Especially if the govt goes with something that is majority compatible (ie. Microsoft). Oh, I'm sure such a back door may be physically available only at the ISP as opposed to through TCP/IP, but still - disgruntled ISP employees deciding to spy on people is a real possibility.
How can such a back door be setup to keep track of who uses it when?
The response to this surprises me for such a liberal board.
Democrat (liberal) = bigger more controlling government (which leads to stuff like the proposed FBI internet wire tap thing)
Or Republican (conservative) = smaller less controlling government.
this liberal (i don't vote [yet?] and haven't registered with any party, so i don't call myself a democrat) prefers smaller, less intrusive government on matters of personal freedoms. and yet, on matters of business, i often favor a more laissez-faire attitude. and, infact, there are only a few places where i prefer larger government. so clearly i don't fall into your yinyang view. and the republican ("conservative") party clearly often sides on larger government on many issues. the antigay marriage amendment for instance.
Quote:
Don't bother pointing out that the current administration is Republican, I know that already, but this reeks of democratic influence.
are you trying to abashedly say that you agree with the liberals of the board on this issue?
The response to this surprises me for such a liberal board.
Democrat (liberal) = bigger more controlling government (which leads to stuff like the proposed FBI internet wire tap thing)
Or Republican (conservative) = smaller less controlling government.
Don't bother pointing out that the current administration is Republican, I know that already, but this reeks of democratic influence.
You are making the false assumption that Democrats are historically for expansion of government in all phases (for lack of a better term) of our daily lives. They're generally known for introducing more bureaucracy, but that doesn't mean they're more invasive or that they're more likely to introduce Big Brother type legislation.
That typically happens with Hawkish administrations, whether Democrat or Republican. Governments that are heavily focused on security, defense, intel and the like... those are the ones most likely to weaken privacy rights by increasing surveillance of civilians. So quite the contrary to what you say, this is not necessarily indicative of a Democratic administration.
Could be, but there's definitely no cause-effect type relationship where the party in power is concerned. This is about an administration that has absolutely nothing to show for itself other than "winning" the WOT (which it has bolstered in all the wrong ways at home -- unauthorized wire taps, authorizing surveillance cameras all over the place, incarceration without leveling charges, and now this as a next step) and a tax cut.
Bush clearly is not a student of history, nor of the "freedom" he so frequently claims to champion or defend. While attempting to improve it in Iraq, he meanwhile stands idly by while Ashcroft and Co. remove it bit by bit from our own lives. Maddening, really. He obviously doesn't even give a crap / understand the implications of what he's allowed to happen.
The following quote makes me think a lot of liberties were taken with this article:
Quote:
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.
What they are saying is it's possible the verbiage could possibly allow the FBI to do those things, but then says what the penalty for noncompliance is. If there is indeed a proposed penalty for noncompliance, then there's no doubt what the intent of the words in the proposal are. But if legal experts say it could possibly be interpreted one way, then I doubt there's really a proposed clear set of guidelines. It wouldn't leave anything open to interpretation. It's just a fishy paragraph.
That said, we need to be very careful about this. Tapping into someone's electronic communications can be done very discreetly and would be quite easy to abuse. It's much simpler for someone to tap your e-mail rather than your phone, because they wouldn't need to go anywhere near your computer to have access to it. There's many points at which the information can be intercepted. Not just point A and point B.
Nevertheless, it is inevitable that this will become the reality. In the last 100 years our government has ballooned into a super massive oppression machine, and we've gone along for the ride willingly. It really is to the point now that government scrutiny of the people has so much inertia that it can't be stopped, only delayed from time to time.
I do in fact agree with the liberals here on this issue, I don't like it. Moogs makes some good points about Hawkish administrations, I didn't really think of that before I posted the first time. Although, I do still think that legislation such as the one proposed here is more of a liberal type thing, it just doesn't seem like the kind of thing a conservative administration would normally propose. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen (as it did in this case) because different conservative administrations have different levels and definitions of what exactly conservative is. In this case, legislation that wold be traditionally considered liberal is being introduced by a conservative government.
I think you gotta start thinking outside the liberal vs conservative dichotomy there is more to it than just that, it seems like you are arguing with yourself over how liberal this is or how conservative that is, as if that should have any bearing on what you think about the matter. ya know?
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
I'm sorry you guys are right. We shouldn't regulate industry to help the FBI to conduct legal investigations of criminals.
It's not even worth considering in a proposal to the FCC. I should have had a hysterical hissy fit like the rest of you.
While they're at it, maybe the FBI should propose (after all, it would just be a proposal) that all retail establishments use clear plastic shopping bags, so police can more easily see what people are buying and carrying around. Nothing wrong in proposing that, huh?
I mean, it's not like the police would look at what you're buying unless they have a warrant, no, not at all. Besides, good upstanding law abiding citizens have nothing to hide, so it shouldn't matter anyway. Only drug dealers carrying drugs and terrorists carrying bombs in bags wouldn't want clear plastic bags to be the norm.
And geez, it obviously doesn't violate the Bill of Rights to simply to propose mandating clear plastic bags for all shopping activities, so there'd be no good reason to for anyone to fuss.
Democrat (liberal) = bigger more controlling government (which leads to stuff like the proposed FBI internet wire tap thing)
Or Republican (conservative) = smaller less controlling government.
Don't bother pointing out that the current administration is Republican, I know that already, but this reeks of democratic influence.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Hey that'll go nicely with Bush's new Mars initiative. Will we still be using moon rocks to power the rocket ships?
I found a moon rock in my nose
Originally posted by DMBand0026
The response to this surprises me for such a liberal board.
In all honesty, it's probably because your idea of liberal is way out of whack with reality. This lines up with everything I've believed for a long time, and conservatives don't like to admit it.
As that (sort of) makes sense as the FBI doesn't want to give up any current ability to wiretap once major carriers start offering VOIP, and wants to make sure everyone's ducks are in a row on this - incompatibilities being rooted out before there are a whole whack of different hardware/software setups.
Of course, they will also push it towards electronic text communications. And maybe keeping track of which files you download from where over P2P services. After all, isn't it the FBI that puts up those warnings at the start of every DVD out there?
But the scariest part is the thing about a "back door". Do they really believe someone won't figure out how to crack something like that? Especially if the govt goes with something that is majority compatible (ie. Microsoft). Oh, I'm sure such a back door may be physically available only at the ISP as opposed to through TCP/IP, but still - disgruntled ISP employees deciding to spy on people is a real possibility.
How can such a back door be setup to keep track of who uses it when?
Originally posted by DMBand0026
The response to this surprises me for such a liberal board.
Democrat (liberal) = bigger more controlling government (which leads to stuff like the proposed FBI internet wire tap thing)
Or Republican (conservative) = smaller less controlling government.
this liberal (i don't vote [yet?] and haven't registered with any party, so i don't call myself a democrat) prefers smaller, less intrusive government on matters of personal freedoms. and yet, on matters of business, i often favor a more laissez-faire attitude. and, infact, there are only a few places where i prefer larger government. so clearly i don't fall into your yinyang view. and the republican ("conservative") party clearly often sides on larger government on many issues. the antigay marriage amendment for instance.
Don't bother pointing out that the current administration is Republican, I know that already, but this reeks of democratic influence.
are you trying to abashedly say that you agree with the liberals of the board on this issue?
Originally posted by DMBand0026
The response to this surprises me for such a liberal board.
Democrat (liberal) = bigger more controlling government (which leads to stuff like the proposed FBI internet wire tap thing)
Or Republican (conservative) = smaller less controlling government.
Don't bother pointing out that the current administration is Republican, I know that already, but this reeks of democratic influence.
You are making the false assumption that Democrats are historically for expansion of government in all phases (for lack of a better term) of our daily lives. They're generally known for introducing more bureaucracy, but that doesn't mean they're more invasive or that they're more likely to introduce Big Brother type legislation.
That typically happens with Hawkish administrations, whether Democrat or Republican. Governments that are heavily focused on security, defense, intel and the like... those are the ones most likely to weaken privacy rights by increasing surveillance of civilians. So quite the contrary to what you say, this is not necessarily indicative of a Democratic administration.
Could be, but there's definitely no cause-effect type relationship where the party in power is concerned. This is about an administration that has absolutely nothing to show for itself other than "winning" the WOT (which it has bolstered in all the wrong ways at home -- unauthorized wire taps, authorizing surveillance cameras all over the place, incarceration without leveling charges, and now this as a next step) and a tax cut.
Bush clearly is not a student of history, nor of the "freedom" he so frequently claims to champion or defend. While attempting to improve it in Iraq, he meanwhile stands idly by while Ashcroft and Co. remove it bit by bit from our own lives. Maddening, really. He obviously doesn't even give a crap / understand the implications of what he's allowed to happen.
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.
What they are saying is it's possible the verbiage could possibly allow the FBI to do those things, but then says what the penalty for noncompliance is. If there is indeed a proposed penalty for noncompliance, then there's no doubt what the intent of the words in the proposal are. But if legal experts say it could possibly be interpreted one way, then I doubt there's really a proposed clear set of guidelines. It wouldn't leave anything open to interpretation. It's just a fishy paragraph.
That said, we need to be very careful about this. Tapping into someone's electronic communications can be done very discreetly and would be quite easy to abuse. It's much simpler for someone to tap your e-mail rather than your phone, because they wouldn't need to go anywhere near your computer to have access to it. There's many points at which the information can be intercepted. Not just point A and point B.
Nevertheless, it is inevitable that this will become the reality. In the last 100 years our government has ballooned into a super massive oppression machine, and we've gone along for the ride willingly. It really is to the point now that government scrutiny of the people has so much inertia that it can't be stopped, only delayed from time to time.
I feel sorry for my as of yet unborn children.
Originally posted by Existence
Of course, Kerry voted for the Patriot Act and is not likely to speak out against this.
The only choice for real change is Ralph Nader.
Bingo. Kerry is just working toward being Bush "lite."
Originally posted by Jubelum
Bingo. Kerry is just working toward being Bush "lite."
sad state of politics indeed.
An Act
To amend title 18, United States Code, to make clear a
telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception
of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I--INTERCEPTION OF DIGITAL AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the `Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act'.
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title--
(1) The terms defined in section 2510 of title 18, United
States Code, have, respectively, the meanings stated in that section.
(2) The term `call-identifying information' means dialing or
signaling information that identifies the origin, direction,
destination, or termination of each communication generated or
received by a subscriber by means of any equipment, facility,
or service of a telecommunications carrier.
(3) The term `Commission' means the Federal Communications Commission.
(4) The term `electronic messaging services' means
software-based services that enable the sharing of data,
images, sound, writing, or other information among computing
devices controlled by the senders or recipients of the messages.
(5) The term `government' means the government of the United
States and any agency or instrumentality thereof, the District
of Columbia, any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the
United States, and any State or political subdivision thereof
authorized by law to conduct electronic surveillance.
(6) The term `information services'--
(A) means the offering of a capability for generating,
acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving,
utilizing, or making available information via
telecommunications; and
(B) includes--
(i) a service that permits a customer to retrieve
stored information from, or file information for
storage in, information storage facilities;
(ii) electronic publishing; and
(iii) electronic messaging services; but
(C) does not include any capability for a
telecommunications carrier's internal management, control,
or operation of its telecommunications network.
... continues ...
the FBI currently runs an email-wiretap program (formerly known as CARNIVORE)
which they've previously tried to extend
and to be technically correct, they probably already wiretap the whole of the Internet via ECHELON
This seems more specifically aimed at developers building backdoors and other 'master key' codes.
Orwellian.
definitely makes me think about donating more to the good guys
See also (EFF Co-Founder) Barlow's excellent Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
IIRC, the second issue of WIRED discussed earlier issues with backdoors
searching their archive for CALEA, CARNIVORE, ECHELON, and EFF will reward readers