Obama Administration Wants New Law to Wiretap the Internet

[Panaconda]

Crypto Wars! Obama Wants New Law to Wiretap the Internet

In a reprise of the crypto wars of the 1990s, the U.S. secret state is mounting an offensive that would force telecommunication companies to redesign their systems and information networks to more easily facilitate internet spying.

Touted as a simple technical "fix" that would "modernize" existing legislation for wiretaps, government security officials will demand that telecommunication firms and internet service providers provide law enforcement with backdoors that would enable them to bypass built-in encryption and security features of electronic communications.

With the Obama administration rivaling, even surpassing antidemocratic moves by the Bush regime to monitor and surveil the private communications of the American people, The New York Times reported last week that "federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet."

Following closely on the heels of FBI raids on antiwar and international solidarity activists, the "change" administration now wants Congress to require all providers who enable communications "to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order."

...

http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2010/10/crypto-wars-obama-wants-new-law-to.html

[unhappycamper]

1. BOHICA!

Bend Over, Here It Comes Again.

[SidDithers]

2. Unrec...

questionable sourcing.

Sid

[Clovis Sangrail]

3. it's real

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20017671-281.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html
http://www.securitypronews.com/insiderreports/insider/spn-49-20100930FBIWantsBackdoorintoPrivateSectorEncryption.html
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/government-seeks

"wiretap the internet" isn't a very accurate description, however, it *is sort of a rehash of the key escrow garbage the they tried to push through a while back

It looks like
a) this originated from the FBI - not the administration

b) it may not actually be feasible
The proposal looks to require providers of electronic communications (email etc) to provide a backdoor to encrypted messages.
This would cause serious problems for places like Hushmail.
Other court rulings seem to consider encryption source code to be protected by the 1st amendment so it's unclear to me how mail encrypted by the user rather than the service would be treated.
Regardless of prohibitions against it the people who want to use encryption in email etc. *will - things like stenography make it impossible to stop.
For that reason it seems they still aren't going to be able to decrypt the messages they really want - if anything they'll make it harder to achieve their stated goals (homeland security) as encryption becomes harder to detect.

[SidDithers]

6. Then I wish the OP had used a better source, like your eff, or cnet articles...

rather than the spin put out by some anonymous antifascist blogger.

Sid

[TBF]

13. He also mentioned the NY Times, if it meets with your approval -

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html

U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: September 27, 2010

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 bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally.

(much more at the link)

[jaxx]

5. I was just wondering if that is an approved source.

+1

[boston bean]

47. WTH is an approved source???

If there is a list that exists somewhere would you like it if we added any source you've ever used to the non approved list.

[bvar22]

19. Reced

for the truth.
If we don't find a way to protect this resource, it WILL be gone.

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[MadHound]

4. More change, oh boy! n/t

[USArmyParatrooper]

7. So what exactly are you objecting to?

Should authorities NOT have the ability to monitor email, IM and cell phone traffic of suspected criminals and terrorists?

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Most of 'em don't know. This is largely to expand current wiretapping law...

where they get a warrant during an investigation. The thing is that nobody has planned a big job over the phone in years.

It's the warrantless snooping that's a problem, and they do that anyway.

[Clovis Sangrail]

10. no - it's the key escrow part that's the problem

they can get warrants now - which might just get them a bunch of encrypted packets that they can't read.
They want the ability to decrypt any of this.

ie: govt agents would be able to decrypt your https communication with your bank or an anonymous message board.

One of the biggest problems with this (aside from privacy issues) is that it makes encryption less than useful for its intended purpose.
If the govt can decrypt your traffic so can John Q. Hacker - which means that your "secure" session with the bank isn't.
I'm already hesitant to use a credit card to purchase things online but my worries can be quelled if the connection is secure and by the reputation of company I'm doing business with.
If somebody sniffing the wire can decrypt those packets (govt. or otherwise) then making that purchase online is no longer a reasonable risk.

This is something that could have serious economic ramifications.

[TreasonousBastard]

30. They don't need to decrypt bank or merchant transactions...

since they can get the transaction records. So, I would hope that isn't included in the final rules.

Most of the rest of it, though, is just keeping warranted snooping up with technology.

Again-- warrantless snooping the bastids are doing all the time anyway. I'm not sure if the NSA and associated programs are actually paying their way, but I doubt they are going away any time soon.

[Clovis Sangrail]

38. I'm not really concerned about the govt snooping ssl financial transactions

as you said they can already get those records.

If there's some sort of extra key that they can use to decrypt there are more pressing issues.
Who has access to it? Where is it stored? How secure is the *that machine?
What happens when somebody roots a machine that has it? How much responsibility is the govt going to take for it?

This isn't keeping up with technology ... it would be a significant rewrite of the concepts behind why people use encryption.
(namely actually providing security)
Overall this is *very similar to the key escrow garbage that already got shot down.

[EFerrari]

9. No, they shouldn't. They should use the FISA courts and those

were already secretive enough.

[USArmyParatrooper]

12. Those issues are mutually exclusive

This law isn't an expansion of powers. It's an expansion of technological capabilities within the confines of existing laws.

[EFerrari]

22. Not really. It's an expansion of power across platforms. n/t

[USArmyParatrooper]

24. No, it's not.

What new authority does is grant law enforcement agencies?

[EFerrari]

28. Did you read the links? They want a back door.

The FBI, who couldn't find its own @ss with both hands, wants a backdoor into all our equipment.

LOL

[Clovis Sangrail]

39. it gives them the authority to force providers to provide encryption that isn't secure.

nt

[mkultra]

31. uh, they would still be force to use FISA to get the info.

[MadHound]

11. If you think that this would be used for strictly criminal issues,

I've some fine swam. . .err, beach front property in Florida. Given the bipartisan abuses of such security apparatus over the past forty years, well, it certainly doesn't inspire confidence.

[TBF]

15. They can get warrants now -

they don't need to gut our privacy laws further.

[USArmyParatrooper]

18. It does absolutely nothing to change the privacy laws

They already are allowed to monitor your email, cell phone and IM traffic. What this law does is close a technology gap to give authorities the capability to monitor certain providers that were previously blacked out. Not blacked out by law, but technology.

[EFerrari]

23. Right. The FISA law that Obama waffled on. That needs to go, too. n/t

[Clovis Sangrail]

40. it very definitely changes privacy laws

currently I can write a program to convert my mail into pig latin, translate it to French, make it all g's and t's, or whatever I want.
(including using publicly available encryption algorithms on it)

It's my communication and it's my right to do it how I want.

The govt can currently intercept it, make a copy, and do whatever they want with that copy.

This doesn't change their ability to intercept my communication but it does put a restriction on the type of speech I'm allowed to use in that communication.
(ie: if everybody there is too dumb to figure out pig latin than I can't use pig latin)

The government's inability to break my encryption of choice should have no bearing on what encryption I'm allowed to use.

[blindpig]

34. Only if I get to decide who the 'suspected criminals and terrorists'

are. That is the crux of the biscuit. The government can and will assign such designation to anyone 'of interest'.

[truth2power]

46. As things stand, we are ALL suspected terrorists, not entitled to due process...

Obama feels entitled to off that Alawi guy, who's not been tried and convicted of anything, so far.

The FBI goes after peace activists. Almost anything one does that doesn't agree with the warmongers can be construed as terrorism. I'm not satisfied with the government's ability to distinguish.

[TBF]

14. K&R nt

[kenny blankenship]

16. Why don't they just mandate the use of Govt. issued computers and telephones

and outlaw everything else? That way they could be sure of placing the backdoor for Uncle Sam in everyone's communication devices by design. Having to retrofit everything for 24x7 surveillance is very inefficient!

[VMI Dem]

17. I'm fucking shocked.

[BlueIris]

20. *Shocking.*

What, Obama...pro-wiretapping? No. Way.

:sarcasm:

[treestar]

21. This is mere extension to new technology

There were no phone wiretaps either, before there were phones.

[USArmyParatrooper]

25. Exactly, and it's even less than that

They already have the right to tap electronic devices. This law simply requires communication companies to provide the •means• for authorities to carry out a lawful wire tap order.

[Greyhound]

26. Wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross...

:(

[ClarkUSA]

27. So what? With changing technology comes new requests for criminal surveillance.

How is this any different than what the government -- under all modern presidents -- have done with phones?

[joe black]

29. USA,USA!

yes, yes, yes, who cares if we lose every crum of our private lives, boy I can't wait for a democrat to get back in the white house.

[ClarkUSA]

32. How is this going to impinge on "our private lives" anymore than phone taps have in past decades?

When pondering a reply, please keep in mind that I prefer facts to overblown rhetoric.

[Clovis Sangrail]

41. easy

if the govt can circumvent all commercially provided encryption your ssl transactions become far less secure.

Govt. systems already get hacked routinely and significant zero day exploits have become common place.
It's just a matter of time before a poorly maintained system with that magic key to unlock everybody's ssl gets owned.

end result for our private lives?
more credit card fraud and higher prices.

[ClarkUSA]

44. That's fear-based speculation on your part.

And I wasn't asking you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Not to worry. Our humanitarian, freedom loving, intellegence geeks would never spy on Americans.

Except when they do. And, besides, it's just a more efficient way for them not to spy on us.

[Blue Owl]

35. I'm gonna have to disagree with Barack on this one

This wiretapping is all very "Bu$hCo," IMO...

[NJmaverick]

36. You should have notified us that this article and claim comes from

this tinfoil hat website:

Antifascist Calling...
Exploring the shadowlands of the corporate police state

[Panaconda]

37. So you don't believe it?

The fact that you can't refute this and only attempt to slur the source when others here have already supplied multiple sources makes it crystal clear you aren't interested in the truth on this matter and wish to have head in sand.

[NJmaverick]

49. Yes I believe my own observations that show I don't live in a police state

[Clovis Sangrail]

42. see post #3

the headline isn't exactly correct but this *is a real issue

[sabrina 1]

43. See post #3 for four other sources.

This is a disgrace coming from an administration that was supposed to fix all of this, not make it worse.

Those who predicted that the FISA Bill vote by Obama was a very bad sign of things to come, have been proven to be correct. I need to apologize to a few people for attempting to try to explain that vote at the time.

[maryf]

45. K&R

ssshhhh!

[independent_voter]

48. Guess he really DOES want people to 'quit whining' and 'buck up'

....or else