koweja writes "The federal appeals court has is hearing a petition to overturn an FCC rule that extends current wire-tapping laws to cover VoIP calls. The petition comes from various privacy advocacy groups, including the Center for Democracy and Technology. Aside from the obvious privacy issues, the rule requires that providers use equipment that allows wiretaps, which would require many companies to "upgrade" in order to comply." Court Battle Over Internet Calls Log in/Create an Account | Top | 67 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 67 comments 0: 64 comments 1: 52 comments 2: 34 comments 3: 20 comments 4: 11 comments 5: 5 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. But why... (Score:5, Funny) by confusion (14388) on Wednesday October 26, @09:14PM (#13885914) (http://www.syslog.org/) ...should those using VOIP be exempt from the abuses of governmental powers that the rest of us must endure?Jerryhttp://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org] [ Reply to ThisRe:But why... by ornil (Score:3) Wednesday October 26, @09:57PMRe:But why... by projectVORTEX (Score:1) Wednesday October 26, @10:29PMVonage by Mister Gas Fireplace (Score:1) Wednesday October 26, @11:17PM Skype (Score:4, Insightful) by mboverload (657893) on Wednesday October 26, @09:14PM (#13885916) (http://mboverload.no-ip.org/tech.html | Last Journal: Tuesday July 13, @02:54PM) With a system like Skype, which uses P2P for calls, how would this work?I'm kind of ok with wiretapping, just as long as there ISN'T A BACKDOOR. I don't care what they say, a backdoor into anything is a bad idea. [ Reply to ThisRe:Skype by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday October 26, @09:30PMNot true. by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday October 26, @10:00PMRe:Not true. by mboverload (Score:2) Wednesday October 26, @10:42PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Skype (Score:4, Interesting) by chill (34294) on Wednesday October 26, @09:44PM (#13886068) IIRC, the wiretap provisions only apply to VoIP POTS interconnects. Straight VoIP VoIP isn't covered by this, only where they interact with the regular phone system. Thus Skype Skype isn't covered, but SkypeOut *IS*.None-the-less, odd are the courts will rule the FCC doesn't have the authority to enforce this. Even the FCC members who voted for this stated that it was on some convoluted, shakey logic.  -Charles [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Skype (Score:5, Informative) by Wesley Felter (138342) <wesley@felter.org> on Wednesday October 26, @09:50PM (#13886091) (http://felter.org/wesley/) The rule is that if any part of the system (Skype) touches the PSTN, then every call (e.g. Skype-to-Skype) must be tappable. It sounds like this would totally sabotage Skype, FWD, Gizmo, SIPPhone, etc. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Skype by osbjmg (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @12:20AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Check out Pulver.com by jesup (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @12:09AMRe:Check out Pulver.com by chill (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @12:41AMRe:Skype by Petey_Alchemist (Score:1) Wednesday October 26, @10:20PMAre you aware? by horacerumpole (Score:1) Wednesday October 26, @11:09PM What good does it really do? (Score:3, Insightful) by bchernicoff (788760) on Wednesday October 26, @09:18PM (#13885936) After all, I could easily write an encrypted P2P voice chat program.I'm sure they already exist... [ Reply to This Re:What good does it really do? (Score:5, Informative) by mboverload (657893) on Wednesday October 26, @09:22PM (#13885950) (http://mboverload.no-ip.org/tech.html | Last Journal: Tuesday July 13, @02:54PM) Encrypted P2P VOIP you say?It's called Skype. Welcome to The Future. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:What good does it really do? by temojen (Score:3) Wednesday October 26, @10:18PMRe:What good does it really do? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday October 26, @09:30PMRe:What good / a sample conversation by radiotyler (Score:3) Wednesday October 26, @09:57PM Same issues North and South of the border (Score:5, Informative) by Funakoshi (925826) on Wednesday October 26, @09:25PM (#13885962) Canada has run into a similar issue with our government's demand for greater wiretaps for phone, email and Internet communications. (From a few weeks ago.) http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew s/20051011/wiretapping_051011/20051011?hub=TopStor ies [www.ctv.ca]It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the public debate forum over "our nation's safety and security," or privacy. [ Reply to This Oh beaurocrats, you so crazy (Score:5, Insightful) by JustADude (895491) on Wednesday October 26, @09:26PM (#13885966) I feel safer already. Bob Terrorist can send coded messages just about any way he wants to get around this (the apocryphal "coded eBay auction" stories, PGP or any number of other encryption standards, smoke signals, fucking microfiche under a stamp), but the feds can listen to mom swapping corn muffin recipes. Anyone else get the feeling the only "terrorists" caught this way will be the ones too stupid to have really caused any damage to begin with?The world is once again safe for democracy.Cheers. [ Reply to ThisRe:Oh beaurocrats, you so crazy by MyIS (Score:1) Wednesday October 26, @09:45PMRe:Oh beaurocrats, you so crazy by bobbyicecubes (Score:1) Wednesday October 26, @10:20PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Oh beaurocrats, you so crazy by drinkypoo (Score:2) Wednesday October 26, @11:36PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. They created it, now they have to deal with it (Score:4, Interesting) by CastrTroy (595695) on Wednesday October 26, @09:29PM (#13885979) (http://www.kibbee.ca/) The feds created the internet, and now they have to deal with the implications. They aren't happy about it. Sure, they could use wiretapping on known VOIP services, but what's to stop someone from programming their own, using strong encryption. Sending sound packets over a network isn't that hard, encrypting them is also easy. Maybe you wouldn't have a super robust network, but so long as the person on the other end is getting the message, then that should be OK. Why aren't more criminals using PGP encrypted email? It seems like at this point it would be pretty obvious to them that they get caught when stuff isn't encrypted. [ Reply to ThisRe:They created it, now they have to deal with it by bluelip (Score:3) Wednesday October 26, @09:52PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:They created it, now they have to deal with it by DarkestDream (Score:1) Wednesday October 26, @10:06PMRe:They created it, now they have to deal with it by ocelotbob (Score:1) Wednesday October 26, @10:22PMRe:They created it, now they have to deal with it by tyler_larson (Score:2) Wednesday October 26, @11:33PM Perspective (Score:4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26, @09:37PM (#13886028) Im the senior architect for a major VoIP provider. Supporting Lawful intercept is just like e911, its trivial to do. Its how well you do it that makes it hard. Good networks (in terms of business logic, closely comparable with pstn networks etc) will accept calls at an edge device, and then proxy them through their network. This however has a cost as transporting sip+rtp == bandwidth. In this scenario, wiretapping is really really easy, but it has a cost associated with it. Skype on the other hand basically steals, by comparison, its bandwidth and does end-to-end connections. In essence its a fancy directory service with interconnects to the pstn. This has a lot of other implications from 911 to privacy. Some are good. Eg on skype no one working at skype can tap your calls (unless they include it in their soft client, and havnt done so yet to my knowledge). However, every isp inbetween can, with varying degrees of difficulty (encryption et all). The question comes down to, who do you trust to do fair and balanced intercept, because its going to happen somewhere. Is it your isp under supeona, or is it the voip carrier who does it all day long. /. 'rs often complain about cease and decist letters, next thing it'll be wiretap letters and they'll comply just as fast. So be careful what you wish for. This society will not give up the ability to combat crime through selective, targeted, electronic monitoring. In fact in the last few years with commander kuku bananas in charge theyve made it even more prevailent. The fact of the matter is skype got kicked outta china, because their tech doesnt support lawful intercept, while others are getting licensed. Something for nothing just isnt gonna happen for the masses in telecom, theres too many special interest groups. You'll see gun control first; mark my words. If the VoIP community fights lawful intercept, E-911, privacy laws et all, and the internet community supports them. The special interests will do in the us as they have done in china, and just firewall the whole freakin country. Dont think it can't/wont happen here. [ Reply to ThisRe:Perspective by Wesley Felter (Score:2) Wednesday October 26, @09:54PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Perspective by ad0gg (Score:2) Wednesday October 26, @10:01PMIn Other News... by schwaang (Score:1) Wednesday October 26, @10:22PM upgrade (Score:2, Insightful) by akhomerun (893103) on Wednesday October 26, @09:39PM (#13886044) i'm thinking about the upgrades you would need to do to enable your VoIP phone to be wiretapped. wouldn't that require you to basically set up a wiretap yourself?i'm glad that the appeal is being pushed through, because when new communications standards are made, new rules for them need to be made. you can't recycle postage rules for email, just like you can't recycle telephone rules for broadband phones. you have to make new ones. there shouldn't be a rule that governs a new standard until our politicians figure out what the standard actually does. [ Reply to This No Problem, I'll Just Encrypt It! (Score:4, Interesting) by mr_stinky_britches (926212) on Wednesday October 26, @09:50PM (#13886086) http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68306, 00.html [wired.com]wired has a good article on an open source project for an encrypted voip application.let's see them wiretap that ;) [ Reply to ThisOpen Source? by oostevo (Score:2) Wednesday October 26, @10:36PMRe:No Problem, I'll Just Encrypt It! by Yehooti (Score:1) Wednesday October 26, @10:46PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. I doubt encryption is the answer (Score:2, Interesting) by Jeian (409916) on Wednesday October 26, @09:50PM (#13886093) Considering the amount of overhead that would be required to encrypt and decrypt a constant data stream such as VoIP, it seems to me that you'd have pretty bad performance problems. [ Reply to ThisRe:I doubt encryption is the answer by pclminion (Score:3) Wednesday October 26, @10:06PMRe:I doubt encryption is the answer by Jeian (Score:1) Wednesday October 26, @10:07PMRe:I doubt encryption is the answer by HermanAB (Score:1) Wednesday October 26, @10:07PMRe:I doubt encryption is the answer by bchernicoff (Score:1) Wednesday October 26, @10:13PMRe:I doubt encryption is the answer by temojen (Score:2) Wednesday October 26, @10:31PM dumb governments (Score:1) by tripppy (921964) on Wednesday October 26, @09:59PM (#13886137) once again the gov. interferes with the ever growing technology race.DVD's, MP3's now phone calls.Maybe if they start looking at problems as a whole rather than putting oldlaws onto new ideas....makes me angry i tells ya! [ Reply to This A quick read between the lines (Score:3, Insightful) by laughingcoyote (762272) <barghesthowl@excite . c om> on Wednesday October 26, @10:10PM (#13886189) Here's the major problem I see here. For the FBI to wiretap, they must have probable cause and a warrant. With such probable cause/warrant, they can do any number of things, from subpoenaing the suspect's ISP to placing surveillance devices right in the suspect's house. They've already got ways to eavesdrop if they follow the procedures they're required to follow.Now, if the FBI had this wiretap authority, they could in effect tap any call, anytime. They would still in theory be required to get a warrant in order to use the stuff in court, but they'd have the switch to flip on. And there's been a push in recent years by you-know-who to allow secret evidence in court proceedings that the suspect gets no opportunity to even view, let alone challenge.So, either law enforcement wants to be lazy, or they want an easier way to do an end-run around the rules. Neither way is a comforting thought to me. [ Reply to This Re:A quick read between the lines (Score:4, Interesting) by mcrbids (148650) on Wednesday October 26, @11:00PM (#13886445) Here's the major problem I see here. For the FBI to wiretap, they must have probable cause and a warrant.Uh, remember the (so-called) PATRIOT act? All that law enforcement needs to do is claim that you might be a terrorist and wiretap laws go out the window. Along with them, your privacy. They don't need to substantiate their "might be a terrorist" in any way, nor do they have to make that claim before doing the wiretap.It's just fucking hideous. Terrorists attack, and the US Govt immediately turns around and hands our defeat to the terrorists. If the terrorists want to attack our freedoms, then they have already had some pretty major successes!(and this is one of those few times where a little swearing is very appropriate) [ Reply to This | Parent2 replies beneath your current threshold. Because 9-11 could have been prevented with this (Score:3, Interesting) by ShatteredDream (636520) on Wednesday October 26, @10:51PM (#13886399) (http://www.blindmindseye.com/) The federal government has always failed to prevent things like this for two reasons: bureaucratic bullshit like fiefdoms in the middle of the CIA and FBI that don't like each other and petty politics. For the last 15 years the CIA lost most of its overseas operational assets, especially in its special operations commando units. These were the people who quietly "got the job done" behind a building with a silencer-equipped pistol or high-powered rifle. You never heard of it happening, except when it was abused like in Latin America.Here's a dirty little fact for the neoconservatives and the Bushitler wants to annihilate all non-born again Christians lunies. You cannot combine anti-terrorism units with law enforcement and you cannot expect things to be clean regardless of the solution. Yes, if we let the CIA quietly murder these terrorists without judicial oversight it could be abused. But it's a lesser evil than relying on the bumbling law enforcement apparatus in this country to do its job. The FBI spends as much time doing PR and lobbying as it does on enforcing the law; we really need to get a high barrier between a group like the CIA and everybody else and let that agency do its job in secrecy.Yes, let people outside the chain of command know what is happening, but don't let the spooks work with law enforcement unless the police are operating in a purely, unequivocably subordinate position so that they cannot lean on the spooks for more power and resources. What concerns me is precisely this beefing up of John Q. Cop's police powers, not the CIA and others being able to discretely beat up and kill people who want to rape, pillage and murder civilians of ANY nationality. I'd have no problem with the CIA torturing the hell out of, then executing some scumbag terrorist in Afghanistan or Iraq like Zarqawi who vascillates between blowing up our soldiers and innocent women and children.This stuff isn't going to get the job done, unless the job is to create a more effective police state. The real section to fear isn't a strong intelligence apparatus, but a law enforcement one whose resources and powers are almost instinguishable from the spooks. The spooks have, when allowed to do their job, much more to worry about than domestic issues. Be very afraid of this and increased efforts to force them to work together, especially when the FBI are jockying for the CIA's foreign intelligence role and the CIA wants to keep its turf. Nothing good can come out of it, and the most probable motive for making the police so powerful is precisely to squash domestic trouble and not of the terrorist variety.Think RICO and Operation Rescue if you need a starting point on how these special police powers tend to show their true, ugly purpose once they're firmly established in the law so that no lawyer can imagine living without them to "protect us." [ Reply to This Why we live in Ameriaca (Score:3, Insightful) by max born (739948) on Wednesday October 26, @10:59PM (#13886442) Justice Department spokesman Paul Bresson says court-authorized electronic surveillance is a critical law enforcement tool. "As communications technologies develop, we must ensure that such progress does not come at the expense of our nation's safety and security," he said.You know, I hate to use such a corny mantra that if we allow this then the terrrorists have won.But really, this is exactly what's going on here. Look at the last words in the quote: safety and securityI can't help but think it's not really about that at all. The Feds, having been unable to connect the dotsof 911 now want to make up for lost time with the ability to monitor every Internet conversation and what they don't realize is this will have no effect on organizations likeal Qeada. [ Reply to This gateway to spying on other stuff (Score:1) by alien236 (886679) on Wednesday October 26, @11:27PM (#13886558) Maybe I'm wrong, but since VoIP is tranmitted like data is, if they get authority to tap what's being transferred via VoIP what's going to stop them from, say, tapping what I may be downloading/uploading at the time. If they're limited to just the junctions where VoIP meets the regular phone systems, like someone mentioned above, then I guess that's ok. But I see this as being a way for them to start peering in on what people are donwloading otherwise. I don't do secret service work but at the same time I don't want Deputy Doughnut to be able to see everything I'm doing, even if I were to be under suspicion that would allow a phone tap but not, say, search warrant (since I think that would be analagous).my $.02 [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. Privacy is dead (Score:2, Insightful) by Gnuontz (728970) on Wednesday October 26, @11:36PM (#13886600) "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"Ben Franklin...Oh, to be worthy of our forefathers. [ Reply to This Freedom of speech? Yeah right. (Score:1) by diorcc (644903) on Thursday October 27, @12:38AM (#13886896) (http://www.calinuxsystems.com/) I really don't understand how in a country whereyou claim you have freedom of speech, not just inpublic but anywhere. Someone can for WHATEVER reasonlisten in, record and then use that against you.That seriously sounds pretty extreme to me.Criticizing and or using your private conversationsgoes way against freedom and freedom of speech.I could never allow for such a thing whatever thereason. What happened to privacy?I don't care if you claim its for "my security",I am actually more secure when my line is;)But I am generally saying, ALLOWING for this to happenwill also allow for it to be abused. And LEGALLY abused,that almost sounds ironic. [ Reply to This5 replies beneath your current threshold.