Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 53

Thread: U.S. Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: U.S. Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet

    I was a little reactionary when I first read this piece of news, but let's think about what this really entails.

    It requires internet providers to update their technology to give government access.

    A warrant is then needed to tap users.

    This has more to do with modernization of law enforcement capabilities than it does with wiretapping rules themselves. As long as a warrant is still needed, I am reluctantly ok with it. Still, I don't like the idea that the government can wiretap you at all.

  2. #42
    User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    United States of America
    Last Seen
    04-04-17 @ 01:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    121

    Re: U.S. Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    I was a little reactionary when I first read this piece of news, but let's think about what this really entails.

    It requires internet providers to update their technology to give government access.

    A warrant is then needed to tap users.

    This has more to do with modernization of law enforcement capabilities than it does with wiretapping rules themselves. As long as a warrant is still needed, I am reluctantly ok with it. Still, I don't like the idea that the government can wiretap you at all.
    You still don't quite get the problem with this. An encrypted message is encrypted for a reason. So people can't read it unless they know the key. It's the same principle as in Australia when Bitlocker came out for Windows 7 Ultimate. They claim criminals now have the capability to hide illegal content behind these full drive encryptions and pretty much wants Microsoft to install a backdoor into the encryption algorithm. This totally will circumvent the security lock installed by having it so hackers that want to gain unauthorized access by hacking away at those backdoors that are supposed to be compliant with government rules.

    And what to do with quantum encryptions? D: I mean, it's hard to copy an electron of the same physical properties just to decrypte the signal.....

    If the government want to do wiretaps, don't make it where it is contradictory to "encrypted" by making it able to easily decrypt...... Blackberry is encrypted enough that government and companies use it to be able to communicate securely. Facebook... warrant is good enough, most of the data isn't encrypted. p2p networks? HAH! That's a good one..... There's a good reason why it's called peer-----to------peer...... There's no server that records them.................... I'm sorry... it sounds good and all, but it creates a lot more problems than it fixes...
    We the People of the United States,... provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare....
    Where did it ever say, promote for the common defence, and provide the general Welfare..... Please don't mix up the two....

  3. #43
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: U.S. Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    I was a little reactionary when I first read this piece of news, but let's think about what this really entails.

    It requires internet providers to update their technology to give government access.
    .
    It requires internet providers to make their **** less secure so that the government has easy access to spy on people. They have no business forcing companies to make their **** less secure just so it can be easy for them to monitor things. If they get a warrant then sure let them tap the lines, however if it is secure then they need to hire a specialist to crack the encryption and if they can't then that is too bad.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  4. #44
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: U.S. Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet

    I tell ya what, if it doesn't happen, you can beat the crap out of me in 2013. Fair enough?

    I've eaten my hat before, so I'm not afraid to eat it again. Hell! I hope I'm wrong!
    Honestly, I wish I had gotten such a pledge out of the Democrats who ruined reasonable debate about warrantless wiretapping with bush=fascist takeover nonsense. Would have made 2008 a lot more fun. What really kills me is that my biggest fear has actually come to pass. The attack on civil liberties has been sanctioned by two different administrations representing both parties and voters seem to have accepted it. The precedent has been set, and it will hard to go back now that both sides are invested in it.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet

    I decided to actually read the article before commenting. I find it several things to be very interesting:

    • The meat - "Essentially, 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."
    • The cheese - "But law enforcement officials contend that imposing such a mandate is reasonable and necessary to prevent the erosion of their investigative powers.

      “We’re talking about lawfully authorized intercepts,” said Valerie E. Caproni, general counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. “We’re not talking expanding authority. We’re talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security.
      ". They want to preserve existing authority, but the technology has moved past their previous capabilities. Note that Valerie Caproni is a lawyer for the FBI. Just saying, I don't trust lawyers.
    • The toppings - "Moreover, some services encrypt messages between users, so that even the provider cannot unscramble them."
    • The special sauce - "Even with such a law, some gaps could remain. It is not clear how it could compel compliance by overseas services that do no domestic business, or from a “freeware” application developed by volunteers."
    • The bun - "Susan Landau, a Radcliffe Institute of Advanced Study fellow and former Sun Microsystems engineer, argued that the proposal would raise costly impediments to innovation by small startups."
    • You want fries with that? - "Moreover, providers of services featuring user-to-user encryption are likely to object to watering it down. Similarly, in the late 1990s, encryption makers fought off a proposal to require them to include a back door enabling wiretapping, arguing it would cripple their products in the global market.

      But law enforcement officials rejected such arguments. They said including an interception capability from the start was less likely to inadvertently create security holes than retrofitting it after receiving a wiretap order.

      They also noted that critics predicted that the 1994 law would impede cellphone innovation, but that technology continued to improve. And their envisioned decryption mandate is modest, they contended, because service providers — not the government — would hold the key.

      “No one should be promising their customers that they will thumb their nose at a U.S. court order,” Ms. Caproni said. “They can promise strong encryption. They just need to figure out how they can provide us plain text.”
      "


    Here is a list of the anticipated government requirements:
    1. Communications services that encrypt messages must have a way to unscramble them.
    2. Foreign-based providers that do business inside the United States must install a domestic office capable of performing intercepts.
    3. Developers of software that enables peer-to-peer communication must redesign their service to allow interception.


    Let me explain my interest in this. I am a software engineer who has been developing a freeware encrypted peer-to-peer network for the past 4 years, in my free time. If you have the right URL, you can communicate directly with a peer with no intervening provider. I do have a directory service which allows people to hook up with each other but after they hook up it does not involve the server. I use strong encryption and the message traffic is encoded making it very hard to break the encryption. I haven't spend any time thinking about how to slave a backdoor comm channel into my software. I wouldn't really want to do so either, which is why this quote: "providers of services featuring user-to-user encryption are likely to object to watering it down." makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. As does this one: "It is not clear how it could compel compliance ... from a “freeware” application developed by volunteers.".

    Requirement 1 suggests I need to provide decryption capability - not sure how to do that.
    Requirement 3 suggests it can no longer be peer-to-peer, destroying my capability.

    This thing needs to be squashed.
    Last edited by reefedjib; 09-28-10 at 04:44 AM.

  6. #46
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,360

    Re: U.S. Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    I was a little reactionary when I first read this piece of news, but let's think about what this really entails.

    It requires internet providers to update their technology to give government access.

    A warrant is then needed to tap users.

    This has more to do with modernization of law enforcement capabilities than it does with wiretapping rules themselves. As long as a warrant is still needed, I am reluctantly ok with it. Still, I don't like the idea that the government can wiretap you at all.
    They are required to give the government access, so when Obama seizes power, he can shutdown the internet. Just like what happened in Iran last year.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #47
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: U.S. Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    They are required to give the government access, so when Obama seizes power, he can shutdown the internet. Just like what happened in Iran last year.
    should this thread be in the conspiracy forum?

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  8. #48
    User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    United States of America
    Last Seen
    04-04-17 @ 01:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    121

    Re: U.S. Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    I decided to actually read the article before commenting. I find it several things to be very interesting:

    • The meat - "Essentially, 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."
    • The cheese - "But law enforcement officials contend that imposing such a mandate is reasonable and necessary to prevent the erosion of their investigative powers.

      “We’re talking about lawfully authorized intercepts,” said Valerie E. Caproni, general counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. “We’re not talking expanding authority. We’re talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security.
      ". They want to preserve existing authority, but the technology has moved past their previous capabilities. Note that Valerie Caproni is a lawyer for the FBI. Just saying, I don't trust lawyers.
    • The toppings - "Moreover, some services encrypt messages between users, so that even the provider cannot unscramble them."
    • The special sauce - "Even with such a law, some gaps could remain. It is not clear how it could compel compliance by overseas services that do no domestic business, or from a “freeware” application developed by volunteers."
    • The bun - "Susan Landau, a Radcliffe Institute of Advanced Study fellow and former Sun Microsystems engineer, argued that the proposal would raise costly impediments to innovation by small startups."
    • You want fries with that? - "Moreover, providers of services featuring user-to-user encryption are likely to object to watering it down. Similarly, in the late 1990s, encryption makers fought off a proposal to require them to include a back door enabling wiretapping, arguing it would cripple their products in the global market.

      But law enforcement officials rejected such arguments. They said including an interception capability from the start was less likely to inadvertently create security holes than retrofitting it after receiving a wiretap order.

      They also noted that critics predicted that the 1994 law would impede cellphone innovation, but that technology continued to improve. And their envisioned decryption mandate is modest, they contended, because service providers — not the government — would hold the key.

      “No one should be promising their customers that they will thumb their nose at a U.S. court order,” Ms. Caproni said. “They can promise strong encryption. They just need to figure out how they can provide us plain text.”
      "


    Here is a list of the anticipated government requirements:
    1. Communications services that encrypt messages must have a way to unscramble them.
    2. Foreign-based providers that do business inside the United States must install a domestic office capable of performing intercepts.
    3. Developers of software that enables peer-to-peer communication must redesign their service to allow interception.


    Let me explain my interest in this. I am a software engineer who has been developing a freeware encrypted peer-to-peer network for the past 4 years, in my free time. If you have the right URL, you can communicate directly with a peer with no intervening provider. I do have a directory service which allows people to hook up with each other but after they hook up it does not involve the server. I use strong encryption and the message traffic is encoded making it very hard to break the encryption. I haven't spend any time thinking about how to slave a backdoor comm channel into my software. I wouldn't really want to do so either, which is why this quote: "providers of services featuring user-to-user encryption are likely to object to watering it down." makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. As does this one: "It is not clear how it could compel compliance ... from a “freeware” application developed by volunteers.".

    Requirement 1 suggests I need to provide decryption capability - not sure how to do that.
    Requirement 3 suggests it can no longer be peer-to-peer, destroying my capability.

    This thing needs to be squashed.
    Don't you think they can intercept information from the servers that are the middleman from clients to the internet? I mean, I know I have to go through at least 5 other servers before I actually hit the internet backbone. So they kinda could poke their noses in there, but they still need the key to decoding all the messages. That's the iffy part... But other than that, I agree with you.
    We the People of the United States,... provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare....
    Where did it ever say, promote for the common defence, and provide the general Welfare..... Please don't mix up the two....

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet

    Quote Originally Posted by MCS117 View Post
    Don't you think they can intercept information from the servers that are the middleman from clients to the internet? I mean, I know I have to go through at least 5 other servers before I actually hit the internet backbone. So they kinda could poke their noses in there, but they still need the key to decoding all the messages. That's the iffy part... But other than that, I agree with you.
    Exactly right. There are very few actual backbone servers that route traffic. If you know the IP:port you are interested in you can slave the traffic. But, as you point out, it is encrypted and difficult to break with modern publically available algorithms. I use RSA/SHA256 based Diffie Hellman key exchange, followed with TripleDES 192 bit symmetric encryption with IV vectors and CBC chaining. The more traffic you transmit in a given encryption the easier it is to crack it. Therefore, I renegotiate encryption every so often to refresh the ciphers. Also, I am encoding object communications, so it isn't just plain text I am sending but computational messages between objects in my language and those are referenced by local ID. Even if you look at it in plain text, it makes little sense. It is very very secure.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: U.S. Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    It requires internet providers to make their **** less secure so that the government has easy access to spy on people. They have no business forcing companies to make their **** less secure just so it can be easy for them to monitor things. If they get a warrant then sure let them tap the lines, however if it is secure then they need to hire a specialist to crack the encryption and if they can't then that is too bad.
    It's also the responsibility of users to protect their own computers from intrusion from hackers. If you don't like windows having a backdoor, then don't use windows. There are other better platforms now anyway. I'm sure if such a backdoor becomes made, people on the net will find a way to compensate. They always do, because they are smarter than the government when it comes to computers.

    Very little that the government does to control the internet is going to have a meaningful effect to the demographic that has something to hide. Those people know how to keep their stuff encrypted regardless of backdoors being made.

    I'm not saying I support it, but as long as a warrant is needed then that's at least a step in the right direction away from Bush era wiretap laws.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •