Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
The FBI and the U.S. Justice Department have renewed their efforts to wiretap voice conversations carried across the Internet.
The agencies have asked the Federal Communications Commission to order companies offering voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to rewire their networks to guarantee police the ability to eavesdrop on subscribers' conversations.
Without such mandatory rules, the two agencies predicted in a letter to the FCC last month that "criminals, terrorists, and spies (could) use VoIP services to avoid lawfully authorized surveillance." The letter also was signed by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
This is not the first time the Bush administration has expressed concern about terrorists and other lawbreakers using VoIP to avoid wiretaps. As previously reported by CNET News.com, a proposal presented quietly to the FCC in July sought guaranteed surveillance access to broadband providers. But the latest submission, which follows a recent FCC forum on Internet telephony, is more detailed than before and specifically targets VoIP providers as a regulatory focus.
In general, VoIP providers have pledged to work with police, and some, like Level 3 Communications, do not oppose the regulations the FBI is seeking. Others, like a coalition of 12 smaller VoIP providers including BullDog Teleworks and PingTone Communications, have told the FCC that "there are various industry initatives under way and the commission should allow those initiatives time to succeed before preemptively regulating."
Federal and local police rely heavily on wiretaps. In 2002, the most recent year for which information is available, police intercepted nearly 2.2-million conversations with court approval, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Wiretaps for that year cost taxpayers $69.5-million, and approximately 80 per cent were related to drug investigations. Those statistics do not include approximately the same number of additional wiretaps authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
When weighing the FBI's request, the FCC will have to decide whether a 1994 law called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) applies to VoIP providers. The law is ambiguous. It clearly requires "telecommunications carriers" to provide ready wiretapping access while explicitly exempting "information services." If the FCC decides CALEA does not apply, the debate would shift to Congress, which could decide to amend the law.
When Internet links are used to carry voice calls that begin and end in the traditional, circuit-switched network ? a move that Verizon Communications announced Wednesday ? that would easily fall within CALEA's existing definitions. But Internet-to-Internet voice links like those offered by VoIP companies Vonage and Skype are closer to information services and fall into a regulatory gray area. The status of voice conversations carried through instant-messaging programs is even more unclear, as is the FCC's ability to compel overseas VoIP providers to comply with U.S. rules.
"The FCC should ignore pleas about national security and sophisticated criminals because sophisticated parties will use noncompliant VoIP, available open source and offshore," said Jim Harper of Privacilla.org, a privacy advocacy Web site. "CALEA for VoIP will only be good for busting small-time bookies, small-time potheads and other nincompoops."
One unusual section of the FBI letter is that it claims the bureau is seeking to protect Americans' privacy rights: "Mandatory CALEA compliance by VoIP providers would better protect the privacy of VoIP users than a voluntary approach. CALEA protects the privacy of surveillance suspects by requiring carriers to provision the surveillance in a confidential manner." Otherwise, the FBI argues, a VoIP company might turn over a "full pipe" to police that would include conversations of more people than necessary.
At least one FCC commissioner has expressed strong support for sweeping VoIP into CALEA's requirements, which currently apply only to telephone companies.
"We must understand the concerns raised by DOJ and FBI that classifying Vonage's VoIP as an information service severely undercuts CALEA," Jonathan Adelstein said last month. "VoIP jeopardizes the ability of federal, state and local governments to protect public safety and national security against domestic and foreign threats. Public safety is not negotiable."
The FBI and the U.S. Justice Department have renewed their efforts to wiretap voice conversations carried across the Internet. Federal and local police rely heavily on wiretaps. In 2002, the most recent year for which information is available, police intercepted nearly 2,200,000 conversations with court approval, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Wiretaps for that year cost taxpayers $69.5 million, and approximately 80 per cent were related to drug investigations."
Your subject line raises questions.
1. Bush has the power to do this by himself? Or do our legislaters and courts perhaps have something to do with it as well?
2. Do you honestly believe this wouldn't have happened had someone else been elected President?
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers