Obama wants to make wiretapping easier

[SnakeEyes]

https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_internet_wiretaps;_ylt=As0grSMxSf3x2_W1XKqMozKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNrN3ByZThnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwOTI3L3VzX2ludGVybmV0X3dpcmV0YXBzBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMwRwb3MDOQRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDbmV3YmlsbHdvdWxk

WASHINGTON – Broad new regulations being drafted by the Obama administration would make it easier for law enforcement and national security officials to eavesdrop on Internet and e-mail communications like social networking Web sites and BlackBerries, The New York Times reported Monday.

The newspaper said the White House plans to submit a bill next year that would require all online services that enable communications to be technically equipped to comply with a wiretap order. That would include providers of encrypted e-mail, such as BlackBerry, networking sites like Facebook and direct communication services like Skype.

Federal law enforcement and national security officials say new the regulations are needed because terrorists and criminals are increasingly giving up their phones to communicate online.

"We're talking about lawfully authorized intercepts," said FBI lawyer Valerie E. Caproni. "We're not talking about expanding authority. We're talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security."

The White House plans to submit the proposed legislation to Congress next year.

The new regulations would raise new questions about protecting people's privacy while balancing national security concerns.

James Dempsey, the vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the new regulations would have "huge implications."

"They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function," he told the Times.

The Times said the Obama proposal would likely include several requires:

-Any service that provides encrypted messages must be capable of unscrambling them.

-Any foreign communications providers that do business in the U.S. would have to have an office in the United States that's capable of providing intercepts.

-Software developers of peer-to-peer communications services would be required to redesign their products to allow interception.

The Times said that some privacy and technology advocates say the regulations would create weaknesses in the technology that hackers could more easily exploit.

 

[GuineaPig]

Yeah, who knew that existing wiretap laws might have to be expanded to account for new mediums of communication.

[El Barto]

Now you're criticizing Obama for continuing Bush's fascist policies?  Obama and Bush are one in the same when it comes to trampling all over individual rights.  It's no surprise to anybody here. 

Fortunately, in this case it won't matter since there's noting they can do about P2P encryption.  Good encryption is easy to come by and while The Man might be able to scare the content providers into playing ball, there's nothing preventing us civvies from encrypting the bejezus out of whatever we want.  The fact that the FBI and NSA can't crack good encryption has them understandably nervous, but forcing everybody to put in backdoors won't help much and will cause tons of problems for everybody else. 

[rumborak]

Not that I'm very happy about this move, but there's a big distinction between Bush's move and Obama's move here. Bush's move increased the authority to order a wiretap, whereas Obama's move here ensures that the legal ones are actually technologically feasible. It's the same difference between increasing your nuclear stockpile or making sure the existing one is kept functional.

That said, I can't see this really feasible. Software development is the ultimate grassroot entrepreneurial activity; how are they going to force people to comply with keeping a neat backdoor open for the NSA? Especially one that doesn't in turn make the software vulnerable for abusing that exact backdoor?

rumborak

[EPICVIEW]

I will bite my tongue as always around here..

I will simply say " told ya so" to all who voted for Barry Sotero..

I like everyone here.. so better that I just bite my tongue

[zerogravityfat]

I will bite my tongue as always around here..

I will simply say " told ya so" to all who voted for Barry Sotero..

I like everyone here.. so better that I just bite my tongue

why? the alternative was mccain who would have probably made stricter decisions. law of lesser evils until tea party pulls the spectrum deeper.

[El Barto]

Not that I'm very happy about this move, but there's a big distinction between Bush's move and Obama's move here. Bush's move increased the authority to order a wiretap, whereas Obama's move here ensures that the legal ones are actually technologically feasible. It's the same difference between increasing your nuclear stockpile or making sure the existing one is kept functional.

rumborak

In this instance, but Obama has been just as bad about trying to expand surveillance.  There are plenty of other instances of his JD pushing for expanded surveillance methods.  Last week it was a brief in a case to authorize planting GPS devices in cars without having to bother with those annoying search warrants. 

[rumborak]

Yeah, it's sad that Obama too has succumbed to becoming ever more secretive these days.

rumborak

[EPICVIEW]

I will bite my tongue as always around here..

I will simply say " told ya so" to all who voted for Barry Sotero..

I like everyone here.. so better that I just bite my tongue

why? the alternative was mccain who would have probably made stricter decisions. law of lesser evils until tea party pulls the spectrum deeper.

do you know what "Carnivore" was and which Prresident started this?

[EPICVIEW]

sorry...I will go back to biting my tongue..I cant get pulled into this VOID.. My views are very strong and not for this group here.

[rumborak]

No offense, but your posts come across as very pretentious.

rumborak

[orcus116]

Anyone who gets in defense mode that quick without anyone saying anything can not possibly have anything worth paying attention to.

[El Barto]

I am familiar with Carnivore and yes, it was deployed during the Clinton administration.  However, Carnivore is a tool which can be used in a very reasonable manner within the rules of the constitution.  Nobody gave a shit about it until GW decided that the Constitution was a pain in the ass to be circumvented whenever feasible.  At that point, things like Carnivore started looking pretty ominous. 

BTW, if you want to go slamming Clinton to make Dumbass look less evil, there are much better avenues to pursue.  I'd start with the CDA and COPA.

[XJDenton]

The more we are surveilled, the safer our privacy will be.

[Seventh Son]

The more we are surveilled, the safer our privacy will be.

I disagree with most things that drooling republicans go on and on about, but having the government constantly surveiling us makes me very nervous given the past history of the US government.

[XJDenton]

Well I view it this way:

1. The government are incompetant according to 90% of the populace
2. Said 90% of populace are intent on ensuring that the government get as little funding as they can possibly afford.
3. The growth of the number of people needing to be surveilled will always outstrip the growth in government spending in this area as a result of 2.
4. As a result of 3, the govenment will have exponentially more data to filter and process, and exponentially less capable computing and humanitarian resources to actually process said data, compounded by point 1.
5. Therefore, as they increase surveillance, the chances of them actually coming across anything of yours that you give a shit about is dramatically lowered.

[Seventh Son]

I'm not one of the people that wants to dramatically limit funding though. I wish it were better used, but that's besides the point.

What is the point, however, is the invasion of privacy and great potential for abuse. And its not as if the US gov't has never abused its power in the past.

[orcus116]

Are there any reported cases of abuse? I'm pretty sure the government wouldn't give two shits about what you're doing unless it was something reeeeally important to them.

[GuineaPig]

I think people are missing the point here.  This is not an expansion of the power to authorize wiretaps like the Patriot Act.  It's just a way to actually execute court-approved wiretaps for new methods of communication.

The same conversation here could've happened 15 years ago with cell phones.

[El Barto]

Are there any reported cases of abuse? I'm pretty sure the government wouldn't give two shits about what you're doing unless it was something reeeeally important to them.

Abuses against bad people are still abuses.  Until you are convicted, you still have the same rights as everybody else; that's a damned important concept. 

[hefdaddy42]

I will simply say " told ya so" to all who voted for Barry Sotero..

Oh hell, not this again.

Yeah, it probably is a good idea that you bite your tongue.

[rumborak]

4. As a result of 3, the govenment will have exponentially more data to filter and process, and exponentially less capable computing and humanitarian resources to actually process said data, compounded by point 1.

This btw constitutes about 80% of the business of my company. People always assume that from a certain amount of data on, everything you want to know will be at your fingertips. Exactly the opposite ; the needle is the same, but the haystack gets bigger.
A lot of our projects are like "so yeah, we have 10,000 hours of video data here. There's certainly something interesting in there, but even if we hire 100 people to watch them, by the time all of them have finished watching their 100 hours of video, whatever they found is 5 months old and thus useless. And by that point we hace even more new data. "

rumborak

[Perpetual Change]

Can't really defend him about this, since hoping this would be reversed is actually one of the reasons I voted for him.

[SnakeEyes]

Now you're criticizing Obama for continuing Bush's fascist policies?  Obama and Bush are one in the same when it comes to trampling all over individual rights.  It's no surprise to anybody here. 

I wasn't criticizing him.  This is one instance when I actually agree with Obama.  You might ask me why I made the thread if it's not meant to be critical.  I know a lot of people around here don't like the idea of wiretapping and actually voted for him because of this issue (see Perpetual Change's post), so I thought it might make for some interesting discussion.  It's really not a "bash Obama" thread.   

[Chino]

Lets say a terrorist group coordinated 5 suitcase nukes in 5 major cities in the US, all within 5 minutes of each other. Now say we later discovered that the group have been keeping in touch and planning via facebook for the last 3 years. The American people will bitch that we couldn't monitor it easily. If no such attack occurs, people say its violating out rights.... its a tough call

[Sigz]

I have a very hard time imagining that, out of the thousands of ways one can communicate over the internet, terrorists would choose facebook.

[orcus116]

You have one (1) new invite!

"Ahkmed's Suitcase Bash 2010!"

[Perpetual Change]

Now you're criticizing Obama for continuing Bush's fascist policies?  Obama and Bush are one in the same when it comes to trampling all over individual rights.  It's no surprise to anybody here. 

I wasn't criticizing him.  This is one instance when I actually agree with Obama.  You might ask me why I made the thread if it's not meant to be critical.  I know a lot of people around here don't like the idea of wiretapping and actually voted for him because of this issue (see Perpetual Change's post), so I thought it might make for some interesting discussion.  It's really not a "bash Obama" thread.   

Out of curiosity, why do you agree with this? What's the benefit?

[El Barto]

Lets say a terrorist group coordinated 5 suitcase nukes in 5 major cities in the US, all within 5 minutes of each other. Now say we later discovered that the group have been keeping in touch and planning via facebook for the last 3 years. The American people will bitch that we couldn't monitor it easily. If no such attack occurs, people say its violating out rights.... its a tough call

There are more ways for them to communicate than you can think of to shut down.  Maybe they're coordinating their effort over a rousing game of Madden 11 on the EASports network even as we speak.  Your will never prevent other people from communicating with each other.  Ever.  At least let the 10 million people that'll get blown to bits enjoy the remainder of their of their lives in a halfway free society. 

[EPICVIEW]

Rum,
your inbox is full!!

[rumborak]

Fixed!

rumborak

[Quadrochosis]

I tried to read this topic but the OP broke the framework of DTF and makes the topic illegible.