Posted on 08/06/2005 11:00:35 PM PDT by dila813
Tech Mandates Force Companies to Build Backdoors into Broadband, VoIP
Washington, DC - Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a release announcing its new rule expanding the reach of the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). The ruling is a reinterpretation of the scope of CALEA and will force Internet broadband providers and certain voice-over-IP (VoIP) providers to build backdoors into their networks that make it easier for law enforcement to wiretap them. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has argued against this expansion of CALEA in several rounds of comments to the FCC on its proposed rule.
CALEA, a law passed in the early 1990s, mandated that all telephone providers build tappability into their networks, but expressly ruled out information services like broadband. Under the new ruling from the FCC, this tappability now extends to Internet broadband providers as well.
Practically, what this means is that the government will be asking broadband providers - as well as companies that manufacture devices used for broadband communications – to build insecure backdoors into their networks, imperiling the privacy and security of citizens on the Internet. It also hobbles technical innovation by forcing companies involved in broadband to redesign their products to meet government requirements.
"Expanding CALEA to the Internet is contrary to the statute and is a fundamentally flawed public policy," said Kurt Opsahl, EFF staff attorney. "This misguided tech mandate endangers the privacy of innocent people, stifles innovation and risks the functionality of the Internet as a forum for free and open expression."
At the same time, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is asking airlines to build similar backdoors into the phone and data networks on airplanes. EFF and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) submitted joint comments to the FCC arguing against the DOJ's unprecedented and sweeping new technology design mandates and anticipatory wiretapping system.
The FCC's new proposal to expand CALEA to airline broadband illustrates the fallacy of law enforcement's rationale for its CALEA request. The DOJ takes the position that broadband has "substantially replaced" the local telephone exchange, but this claim is reduced to the point of absurdity aboard an airplane and opens the door for CALEA to cover just about anything.
Contact:
Kurt Opsahl
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
kurt@eff.org
ok, aggreed
But that is a major behavior change for people
You almost have to live a security lifestyle to prevent this.
Since the Feds know all this, the question that should be asked is what their true motives actually are.
That's putting it mildly. I've long since earned the distinction of being known as my agency's "Crypto Evangelist."
You almost have to live a security lifestyle to prevent this.
I do. It's my life, my hobby, and my job.
The moment hackers start using these government mandated 'backdoors' to take control and shutdown these networks (costing the U.S. economy tens of billions in U.S. dollars), this regulation will be shelved.
Yes, the legacy that keeps on raping the U.S. population.
I just KNOW the ACLU is going to take up this topic..
I HATE having to support the ACLU on topics..
But in this instance I will have to..
I once saw someone say they split their giving between the ACLU and the NRA so they could get coverage on the whole bill of rights.
As long as you use a sufficiently healthy key pair, PGP is essentially unbreakable, but some in government have taken care of that as well. I don't remember the details of the case, but the simple fact that the defendant used PGP was enough to convict him recently. Also, some people have done time for refusing to give up the passphrase to their decryption key.
I fear the privacy and freedom we have given up in the name of "Homeland Security" will not easily be won back.
With commercial PGP, sure. But with Open Source GPG, I doubt it.
I don't remember the details of the case, but the simple fact that the defendant used PGP was enough to convict him recently.
I'm going to have to see some details on that. What you describe is absurd and a positively blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment. Even if it flew in one court (which I find highly doubtful), it'd never fly on appeal.
Also, some people have done time for refusing to give up the passphrase to their decryption key.
I think you've got some seriously erroneous reports, Steve. Not forking over a passphrase is totally covered under the Fifth Amendment (the right to not incriminate yourself).
I'm going to need to see some credible links on these claims.
Getting people to understand the nature of security is difficult when the sheeple live under the illusion that the police will "protect" them...never minding all the court precedents that have ruled that no police are thus obligated in any way.
I think it was Albert Ellis who once remarked that most people don't want to be of sound mental faculties; they just want to be happy neurotics. In the same vein, most people don't want real security; they just want reinforcement of the illusion of security.
What's your take on spread spectrum? That bit-rotation thing on top of encyrption looks like it could be a bear to crack.
Spread spectrum is based on a frequency vs. time function utilized by the transmitter. It adds a layer of complexity, but it doesn't eliminate the threat of hostile eavesdroppers; especially when the hardware and software is commercially available to anyone who can afford it.
For my own part, I won't have anything to do with 802.11b or g. Even with SSID broadcast turned off, MAC filtering enabled, and WEP or WPA (which is strictly interim until 802.11i) enabled, it's only wired equivalency at best.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Well, that's diff'rent!
I wouldn't advise standing on the Fifth Amendment.
Please consult a lawyer on this. I did. The State cannot compel you to testify against yourself. If anyone ordered me to do as much, I'd go Federal on 'em.
As for Kelo, I wish I knew what the hell the Supremes were thinking when they handed down that abomination...it's just a frickin' mystery.
It should be interesting trying to convince, say, the Red Chinese to participate in this scheme.
Given that the SCOTUS stepped around the property rights portion of the Fifth Amendment as easily as it did, what makes you (or your lawyer) think the self-incrimination portion is sacrosanct?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.