more on fbi plans new Net-tapping push

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Date: July 8, 2006 11:17:46 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: RE: [IP] FBI plans new Net-tapping push

Doest his meant hat if I use a generic Linux box to write some  
routing or NAT software I must include an FBI module? Is it illegal  
for Cisco to provide open source LinkSys boxes?

Given the attitude that the unexamined conversation is treason  
shouldn’t the FBI be looking into all calls made using walkie- 
talkies, between cordless phones, between extension phones? Are  
corporate PBXes exempted?

Good thing that Bombay is now called Mumbai – otherwise think of all  
the conversations that would be flagged as dangerous.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 08:00
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: [IP] FBI plans new Net-tapping push







Begin forwarded message:

From:   Richard Forno <rforno () infowarrior org>

Date:    July 8, 2006 2:22:38 AM EDT

To:       Blaster <rforno () infowarrior org>

Cc:       Dave Farber <dave () farber net>

Subject:            FBI plans new Net-tapping push



FBI plans new Net-tapping push

By Declan McCullagh

http://news.com.com/FBI+plans+new+Net-tapping+push/

2100-1028_3-6091942.html

Story last modified Fri Jul 07 18:55:01 PDT 2006

The FBI has drafted sweeping legislation that would require Internet  
service providers to create wiretapping hubs for police surveillance  
and force makers of networking gear to build in backdoors for  
eavesdropping, CNET News.com has learned.

FBI Agent Barry Smith distributed the proposal at a private meeting  
last Friday with industry representatives and indicated it would be  
introduced by Sen. Mike DeWine, an Ohio Republican, according to two  
sources familiar with the meeting.

The draft bill would place the FBI’s Net-surveillance push on solid  
legal footing. At the moment, it’s ensnared in a legal challenge from  
universities and some technology companies that claim the Federal  
Communications Commission’s broadband surveillance directives exceed  
what Congress has authorized.

The FBI claims that expanding the 1994 Communications Assistance for  
Law Enforcement Act is necessary to thwart criminals and terrorists  
who have turned to technologies like voice over Internet Protocol, or  
VoIP.

“The complexity and variety of communications technologies have  
dramatically increased in recent years, and the lawful intercept  
capabilities of the federal, state and local law enforcement  
community have been under continual stress, and in many cases have  
decreased or become impossible,” according to a summary accompanying  
the draft bill.

Complicating the political outlook for the legislation is an ongoing  
debate over allegedly illegal surveillance by the National Security  
Administration—punctuated by several lawsuits challenging it on  
constitutional grounds and an unrelated proposal to force Internet  
service providers to record what Americans are doing online. One  
source, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive  
nature of last Friday’s meeting, said the FBI viewed this as a top  
congressional priority for 2007.

Breaking the legislation down

The 27-page proposed CALEA amendments seen by CNET News.com would:

·         Require any manufacturer of “routing” and “addressing”  
hardware to offer upgrades or other “modifications” that are needed  
to support Internet wiretapping. Current law does require that of  
telephone switch manufacturers—but not makers of routers and network  
address translation hardware like Cisco Systems and 2Wire.

·         Authorize the expansion of wiretapping requirements to  
“commercial” Internet services including instant messaging if the FCC  
deems it to be in the “public interest.” That would likely sweep in  
services such as in- game chats offered by Microsoft’s Xbox 360  
gaming system as well.

·         Force Internet service providers to sift through their  
customers’ communications to identify, for instance, only VoIP calls.  
(The language requires companies to adhere to “processing or  
filtering methods or procedures applied by a law enforcement  
agency.”) That means police could simply ask broadband providers like  
AT&T, Comcast or Verizon for wiretap info—instead of having to figure  
out what VoIP service was being used.

·         Eliminate the current legal requirement saying the Justice

Department must publish a public “notice of the actual number of  
communications interceptions” every year. That notice currently also  
must disclose the “maximum capacity” required to accommodate all of  
the legally authorized taps that government agencies will “conduct  
and use simultaneously.”

Jim Harper, a policy analyst at the free-market Cato Institute and  
member of a Homeland Security advisory board, said the proposal would  
“have a negative impact on Internet users’ privacy.”

“People expect their information to be private unless the government  
meets certain legal standards,” Harper said. “Right now the  
Department of Justice is pushing the wrong way on all this.”

Neither the FBI nor DeWine’s office responded to a request for  
comment Friday afternoon.

DeWine has relatively low approval ratings--47 percent, according to  
SurveyUSA.com—and is enmeshed in a fierce battle with a Democratic  
challenger to retain his Senate seat in the November elections.  
DeWine is a member of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee charged with  
overseeing electronic privacy and antiterrorism enforcement and is a  
former prosecutor in Ohio.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., decided 2-1  
last month to uphold the FCC’s extension of CALEA to broadband  
providers, and it’s not clear what will happen next with the lawsuit.  
Judge Harry Edwards wrote in his dissent that the majority’s logic  
gave the FCC “unlimited authority to regulate every  
telecommunications service that might conceivably be used to assist  
law enforcement.”

The organizations behind the lawsuit say Congress never intended  
CALEA to force broadband providers—and networks at corporations and  
universities—to build in central surveillance hubs for the police.  
The list of organizations includes Sun Microsystems, Pulver.com, the  
American Association of Community Colleges, the Association of  
American Universities and the American Library Association.

If the FBI’s legislation becomes law, it would derail the lawsuit  
because there would no longer be any question that Congress intended  
CALEA to apply to the Internet.








You are subscribed as BobIP () Bobf Frankston com

To manage your subscription, go to

http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
people/



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/