Daniel AJ
@univie.teleweb
| Government kills Usenet
C'mon people, don't you see the connection between the "Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act" and Rogers dumping Usenet?
This Act
www.parl.gc.ca/PDF/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-74_1.PDF
would require Internet Service providers to include interception capability (wiretap access) on new technology, and to give the names, addresses, and phone numbers of customers to law enforcement agencies on request.
As only ~3 percent of Rogers' user base use Usenet, it would be a *huge* effort for Rogers to implement wiretapping on the (outsourced) Usenet service. As an ISP's manager, seeing this act tabled by the government, you *have* to stop services used by only a small minority.
If you want to rescue Usenet and other services as we know it, write to your MP *now*. This is just the first part of several laws, demanding more and more and more. They can't do it all in one step, because there would be a public outcry. Instead, they do it in smaller steps. They slice our rights and with it our services like a salami. 'till it's gone. |
|
Marshal
Premium
join:2003-11-01
Montreal | That thing is for voip.. not for usenet! |
|
murphn
join:2005-04-17 | reply to Daniel AJ
thats a bill... thats gonna die with the election... thats not why they did it... |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
1 edit | reply to Daniel AJ
Whatever it may apply to (and my reading of the act doesn't seem to suggest that it's VoIP only)it's not a problem at all to intercept data. Take a device like a service engine, have it filter packets based on header and "From" IP address and send them off to another system ... what's the problem. It makes no difference whether it's Usenet protocol or VoIP or http: or smtp or pop etc.
Set the parameters and intercept.
This is just another "The gov't made me do it" conspiracy theory. |
|
Daniel AJ
@univie.teleweb
| reply to Daniel AJ
I'm afraid you're wrong. It's about all kinds of "interception of information transmitted by telecommunications". This includes Usenet.
Please read the proposed Act. e.g. it defines:
"communication” means a communication effected by means of telecommunications and includes any related transmission data or other ancillary information.
So it's not "just" voice.
And, as I said, this is just the first part of a planned series of laws. The Province (Vancouver) reports:
"Other elements of the plan that would spell out how companies must go about preserving electronic message data and the manner in which authorities can gain access to it is expected in a follow-up bill from Justice Minister Irwin Cotler."
»www.canada.com/vancouver/theprov···47b6578b
Mind, that Usenet feed has grown to 2 TB/day (and counting). |
|
Daniel AJ
@univie.teleweb
| reply to sbrook
I'm, not saying that interception is technically impossible. But it is a huge effort. It takes time to implement an costs a several fortunes. The government wants the providers to *store and keep* all transmitted data (not just who communicated with whom, but what was actually transmitted) for a long time, maybe up to three years. There is a lot of pressure from the US to do that. That's not in this law, but maybe in the next or the one after. The storage capacity to accommodate that hasn't been built yet. The costs would be enormous. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | It's NO Harder to capture Usenet data than it is to capture any other kind of data. Plug in IP addresses (To/From) and port. It's all in the headers of the packets.
So, your idea holds no water. |
|
Daniel AJ
@univie.teleweb
| I'm not saying that it's generally harder to capture Usenet data. But, from an ISP's point of view, one service less is one hassle less.
For Rogers, spying on Usenet data is an extra effort, as they have outsourced that service. They'd have to implement a new "spying interface" with their outsourcing partner. According to the Act they can't just tell the police "we don't provide it, kindly ask our outsourcing partner". As long as Rogers *sold* the service, they'd have to intercept it. |
|
zyzzyvas
join:2004-10-05
| No, they would not need any "spying interface" with giganews. Everything would be handled on Rogers' end. Every packet coming or going to a user's account can be recorded, whether it's usenet traffic, web pages, or completely random garbage. No extra work required. |
|
Daniel AJ
@univie.teleweb
| That's the point: garbage. The user can - if he wants - be creative with routing or ciphering. A real waterproof surveillance would have to tap in at several levels: the user's equipment, the trunk and the backbone - plus, finally, the nntp server. (Just like with VoIP, except for the nntp part, of course.)
For example: You could post a binary in several parts, using different access points. Your own, your mum's, your friend's, a public one, nameit. Each part taken for itself might be useless data garbage. Unreadable to any surveillance.
Only on the nntp server, where all parts would add together, you would be able to "understand" what actually has been posted. That is where you would have to start to trace back each part's poster. You *do* need an interface for that.
The abuse of children has not been invented by the Usenet and, sadly, it won't be stopped by killing the Usenet off. |
|
mordin
42 inches of 1080p
Premium
join:2005-05-28
Moncton, NB
| reply to Daniel AJ
The way I see it it's all telecommunication providers and that would include phone & cell phone companies too. All it will do is when the RCMP come and say we are investigating this internet connection/phone line/cell phone the service provider must supply them with the customer information and have in place the means to monitor the one being investigated. They couldn't just do it randomly they would have to have a court order. There is a similar one being pushed in the states. It also differentiate between RIAA type investigations where the person being investigated would be notified and police investigations where they wouldn't be notified.
--
P4 2.8 800 fsb, Asus P4P800 MoBo w/1Gig PC3200 RAM, 256 Meg GeForce 5600, Sound Blaster Audigy Gamer, DVD-Rom/CD-R Burner & LG Duel layer DVD Burner, 2x 120 Gig Hard Drives |
|
jackr
join:2004-03-10
Barrie, ON
·3 Web
·Rogers Hi-Speed
 ·Acanac
| reply to Daniel AJ
It does bring up an interesting point, (I can hear sbrook grown as I write this),
When exactly did we (the users) lose control of the internet? A service slightly shy of 10 years old (At a trade show at the metro T convention centre in 91, there was a booth advertising the virtues of using the new Mosaic browser for the coming "web", and the question of whether the internet would use IP or IPX)...to gov't and big companies?
It's interesting to observe how the internet has gone from freely sharing information, to a tool of corps (like Rogers) and the another piece of control for gov't.
I want my BBS's back!
Nice how we lost the war. |
|
Daniel AJ
@univie.teleweb | reply to mordin
This is correct when you read this law only. But there is more in the pipeline. |
|
corster
Premium
join:2002-02-23
Ottawa, ON
clubs: 
| reply to Daniel AJ
there is no connection.
all this law requires is letting the government cut into your internet line and giving the government customer information upon request.
the government can then see all your connections to USENET.
it's rogers fault. not the governments.
--
Blog d'un Tory Rouge.... It's in English!
CRIAwatch Blog |
|
andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario | reply to Daniel AJ
they can track anyone down now.all they need to do is put a query code on the p-cube or what ever they use and have it do the all the work |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
1 edit | The users lost control of the internet in two phases ... 1) when corporations saw it as a marketing and sales medium which is a loss of one kind, and 2) when the US declared a war on terrorism after Sept 11.
Rights and freedom go down the toilet when corporations control things and when governments start limiting freedoms when then can sell "the security of the people" as a paramount goal.
Now ... these ideas apply not just to Rogers ... but to all Canadian ISPs and so from a technical perspective, that part of the discussion belongs in
Canadian Broadband forum -> »Canadian Broadband.
The political posturing belongs elsewhere too ... like
the Canadian Political Forum -> »/forum/canpol
So ... if you want to continue this discussion ... please take the appropriate part to the appropriate forum. |
|
