VoIPRocks
join:2004-01-21
Brookfield, CT
| FBI wants to Wiretap & Regulate VoIP
I just saw a column on "FBI wants to Wiretap & Regulate VoIP that was very interesting"
Here's a snapshot of part of it, what do you guys think?
_________________
I have no love for terrorists and support our government’s actions to try and prevent another September 11th at almost any costs, but the recent actions by the FBI to try and monitor VoIP traffic really disturbs me. In case you hadn’t heard, the FBI and the U.S. Justice Department have renewed their efforts to wiretap voice conversations carried across the Internet.
The agencies want VoIP to fall under the same jurisdiction under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) as the traditional PSTN. As such, the agencies have asked the FCC to order companies offering VoIP to rewire their networks to guarantee the ability to eavesdrop on subscribers' conversations. Without such rules, the two agencies stated in a letter to the FCC last month that “criminals, terrorists, and spies could use VoIP services to avoid lawfully authorized surveillance.”
...
...
There are several reasons why this is such a bad idea, I don’t even know where to begin. First, VoIP is still a nascent industry, still getting its legs, but coming on strong over past several months. Government regulation will only hurt this burgeoning industry resulting in lost jobs and stunting economic growth in one of the fasting growing tech sectors. Second, tapping of VoIP brings to mind the FBI’s Carnivore project which caused quite a stir with people complaining it violated the First Amendment. Check out »www.stopcarnivore.org/
______________________________
He makes some good points later on in the article. I'm not sure I totally agree with him, but it's an interesting read...
check it out:
»forums.tmcnet.com/webwiz/forum/f···450&PN=1 |
|
IBF
@aliant.net
| I would have to say this, let them listen to my phone calls, I don't care. As long as it dosn't hurt my service quality, and they dont' steal my credit card and use it to by coffee for the whole department.
I do not agree with the FCC wanting to regulate VOIP as a phone service, because phone service it is not.
IBF |
|
Test99
Premium
join:2003-04-24
San Jose, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
 ·InPhonex
1 edit | reply to VoIPRocks
Imagine what this would do to direct VOIP-to-VOIP calls, which don't go through a provider's computers at all after the setup phase. They would have to be rerouted through a special snooping proxy. This would increase the time delay, making it unacceptable on many international calls that are already pushing the limits. It would also cause packet loss any time the proxies became overloaded. And callers would have to pay for this proxy "service", so that free calls would no longer be free.
A ban on VOIP-to-VOIP calls that don't go through a snooping proxy is unenforceable. Programmers will inevitably write VOIP applications that don't go through a central server at all. Skype already has. And calls can be encrypted.
Here, as elsewhere, government is not the solution to any problem. It is the problem. |
|
stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
| reply to VoIPRocks
Re: [FWD] Virtual FWD Numbers
For reasons stated in prior posts, I do care what the Government listens to and have posted a rather lengthy statement of my political beliefs in another post.
What my concerns (looking at your post) are is whether making VOIP easy to bug means that peer to peer nets functionally become impossible. I'm not sure how you can tap such a stream without either: (a) routing it through a central server; or (b) making it completely unsecure.
I have not read the CALEA so I'm not sure whether it contains an exception where it is practically impossible for the carrier to provide the assistance or not.
My other concern is that we are living in a strange time period where many individuals or criminal groups possess technology which is relatively equal to Government grade technology. I'm not all that sure that you can insure that a masterkey for the government cannot be recreated for the thief.
I'm also deeply concerned that none of these acts enlarging the Government's power except for the Patriot ACt I have sunsets. Last night, George W. Bush argued that the sunset should go on the theory that "terrorism won't end after one year." Once rights are given up, they are rarely given back. If the Government is given powers, I think that they should have a sunset. Further, I think that the US should be forced to obey foreign laws when they are bugging foreign calls. They should have no greater right to break EU law than I do.
Stu
Stu |
|
balaton
join:2003-03-28
Pomona, NY
| reply to VoIPRocks
Re: FBI wants to Wiretap & Regulate VoIP
It seems to me that it's a failed attempt. The bad guys can set up their own sip server, just as they can set up their own chat server. Both chat and VoIP can be encrypted so they won't be able to decrypt it without massive processing power. Even if they decrypt it there will be a delay in them getting the message. And while they trying to catch the bad guys the majority is getting screwed over. I doubt they even understand how VoIP or any of these communication protocols work. And anyhow technicaly what right does the FBI have to listen to a conversation when Joe Shmo in Bahamas calls his brother Miguel in Caracas using FWD? |
|
youngmoore
join:2001-03-16
Marietta, GA | reply to VoIPRocks
I don't know why this keeps reappearing here "topic" its been discused here to death. Do a search and you will be greeted
with alot of threads.
ym |
|
lestat99
join:2000-08-04
Piscataway, NJ
| reply to Test99
With VoIP Calea systems being proposed you wouldn't send all of the calls through the recording proxy, just the calls that have been subpoenaed. Of course it is up to the ITSP to insure that the subpoena is being carried out properly.
--
Info Network Security:»www.packetdefense.com |
|
Test99
Premium
join:2003-04-24
San Jose, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·InPhonex
| said by lestat99  :
With VoIP Calea systems being proposed you wouldn't send all of the calls through the recording proxy, just the calls that have been subpoenaed. Of course it is up to the ITSP to insure that the subpoena is being carried out properly.
I guess people who want to avoid government surveillance will use direct IP dialing to talk to their buddies, or else rely on a SIP server outside the jurisdiction of the FBI.
It's actually good news that Internet telephony is difficult for governments to control. If you were working to promote a free society in China, for example, would you want the government to be able to monitor your calls? |
|
