Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FBI: We Need Wiretap-Ready Web Sites — Now

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the go-climb-a-tree dept.

Communications 377

TheGift73 writes with news that the FBI is pushing a proposal to update old wiretap legislation so that modern web firms would be forced to build in backdoors to facilitate government surveillance. Quoting CNET: "In meetings with industry representatives, the White House, and U.S. senators, senior FBI officials argue the dramatic shift in communication from the telephone system to the Internet has made it far more difficult for agents to wiretap Americans suspected of illegal activities, CNET has learned. The FBI general counsel's office has drafted a proposed law that the bureau claims is the best solution: requiring that social-networking Web sites and providers of VoIP, instant messaging, and Web e-mail alter their code to ensure their products are wiretap-friendly. ... The FBI's proposal would amend a 1994 law, called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA, that currently applies only to telecommunications providers, not Web companies. The Federal Communications Commission extended CALEA in 2004 to apply to broadband networks."

cancel ×

377 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Time to move. (5, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39894947)

Time to move my mail/chat server out of the US.

Re:Time to move. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39894987)

Time to expatriate, unless you do not have the pedigree to obtain instant citizenship abroad.

Re:Time to move. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895045)

To where? There isn't a country out there that isn't corrupt to the whims of the US that isn't ruled by someone just as bad.

Re:Time to move. (4, Insightful)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895321)

To where? There isn't a country out there that isn't corrupt to the whims of the US that isn't ruled by someone just as bad.

Sure, but we do have a better health plan ;-)

Luxembourg (4, Interesting)

EnergyScholar (801915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895557)

We wanted our VOIP services to be free of CALEA backdoors, so we based ourselves in Luxembourg, where they do not have such regulations, and are not likely to have them anytime soon.

Re:Time to move. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895003)

Time to move my mail/chat server out of the US.

No, if this passes, it's time to move out of the US.

When posession of a Linux distro with smptd becomes a crime, it's not time to move your mail server out of the US, it's time to move yourself out of the US.

Re:Time to move. (5, Funny)

CodeHxr (2471822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895005)

Are you implying that you don't want to be snooped on because you have something to hide?

Re:Time to move. (2)

CodeHxr (2471822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895039)

ugh... need to preview comments more. that was supposed to have </sarcasm> at the end of it, but, silly me, I don't normally think to use HTML in every-day conversation.

Re:Time to move. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895065)

Yes.

Re:Time to move. (4, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895223)

I have lots to hide. Just because it is not illegal, unethical, or immoral does not mean I do not want to hide it.

  I am also do not want to spend my time complying with this kind of regulation.

Re:Time to move. (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895413)

"I have lots to hide. Just because it is not illegal, unethical, or immoral does not mean I do not want to hide it.

I am also do not want to spend my time complying with this kind of regulation."

All of the above. If the FBI asked me to provide a "back door" to my service, I'm not sure whether I would just tell them "NO!", or give them the answer I more feel like giving them: "F**k Off And Die!"

Re:Time to move. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895443)

But just to be clear: either way it would definitely be no. Even if that meant going to prison. This is WAY over the top. It's un-American.

I wonder when government and law enforcement are going to get the message -- which we have been sending for a long time now -- that they have already gone too far?

Re:Time to move. (1)

Delarth799 (1839672) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895495)

You seem to forget how the US Government operates. The laws are passed and will go as far as they want them to go. Only later after someone has amassed enough support and money does the constitution and the question of how far have they gone come into play.

Re:Time to move. (1)

allaunjsilverfox2 (882195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895537)

Um, our prison system is just short of torture. Not something that'd I'd willing accept.

Re:Time to move. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895541)

When we take away their badges and authority and exile them, either to alaska, siberia, or australia, depending on who's willing to accept them. Worst case NYC still has some of those garbage scows, right? Just gotta convince the enviromentalists and PETA it's the humane thing to do :D

Re:Time to move. (3, Funny)

morcego (260031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895599)

I have lots to hide. Just because it is not illegal, unethical, or immoral does not mean I do not want to hide it.

  I am also do not want to spend my time complying with this kind of regulation.

I'm not sure about illegal or unethical, but man do I have immoral things to hide ...

Re:Time to move. (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895615)

I think you speak for [nearly] all of us. Nobody outside government would actually want this. My only fear, as always, has to do with general public apathy.

Re:Time to move. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895329)

I'm sure there's a lot more in the "you don't want to know" category than in the "I don't want you to know" category.

Re:Time to move. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895489)

I have everything to hide. Is it illegal? No. But it's mine, and it's on a need-to-know basis. Law enforcement doesn't need to know, especially not without telling me first.

Re:Time to move. (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895213)

Good idea. Perhaps this will help spawn decentralized, encrypted social networks. Something like a mixture of Diaspora and Tor would be pretty freaking sweet.

Solutions Exist Already (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895459)

"Good idea. Perhaps this will help spawn decentralized, encrypted social networks. Something like a mixture of Diaspora and Tor would be pretty freaking sweet."

We already have them. Some of them have been around for a long time. Like FreeNet and OneSwarm. Both of which I have had for years now.

Re:Time to move. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895605)

FreedomBox [wikipedia.org] (which has been mentioned on Slashdot before) is working on it. Particularly, building a usable system with the vision that an average user could buy a cheap plug computer with FreedomBox's software installed, plug it in, and use it instead of the various centralized cloud and social services in use today. The software is based on Debian and combining existing tools along with new software and protocols to make it usable.

Re:Time to move. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895241)

Why? It's already legal for the USA to be snooping in on all foreign communication.

Re:Time to move. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895503)

I worked on CALEA and even for that, smaller telecoms were able to get exempted from this in-theory. I say in theory because even in areas of Alaska that only served 4000 people we submitted estimates for over $400K to update them and the FBI paid for it (shhh - don't tell any one - I did sign a NDA)...that aside, smaller sites can't possible be forced to pay for this and if you do, take a note from the CALEA play book - estimate very high and make a lot of proift.

Skype? (1)

xtal (49134) | more than 2 years ago | (#39894955)

How does Skype deal with this anyway?

Other than gathering data on connection times and destinations, frequencies, and statistical correlation techniques, I'd long assumed traditional wiretap is dead.

Am I incorrect?

Re:Skype? (2)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | more than 2 years ago | (#39894997)

They get your IP from Skype then head on over to Comcast (1 in 5 chance your on them in the U.S.) who freely gives them access to whatever they need.

Re:Skype? (2)

Lambeco (1705140) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895027)

Right but it seems as though they have no way to access the actual content of the call, unless I misunderstand how Skype works.

Re:Skype? (2)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895173)

Has Skype found a way to deal with issues like this yet?

http://phys.org/news/2011-05-encrypted-voip.html [phys.org]

Re:Skype? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895469)

Seems almost trivially easy to solve: pad the encoding (prior to encryption, so that the receiver can determine what is padding and what is actual speech) randomly. Tada, no more packet-size to speech correspondence (it will increase the data overhead, of course, but you can reduce that by padding "dead-space" when people aren't talking more than when they are).

Re:Skype? (2)

Lambeco (1705140) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895009)

Since Skype is not only P2P but also encrypted via 256-bit AES, I have a hard time seeing how you could be wrong...

Re:Skype? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895037)

By setting up supernode-servers (which are "coincendentally" capable of passing voice-traffic): http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/05/03/2225234/microsoft-using-linux-to-optimize-skype-traffic

Re:Skype? (1)

kyrsjo (2420192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895195)

If the session is end2end encrypted, getting access to the stream will just give you random bits.

Re:Skype? (1)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895371)

MiTM. How do you know that you're establishing the connection with the person at the other end, and not just signing a stream with a different server or that your packets aren't being transparently intercepted and modified during the encryption setup phase?

Re:Skype? (1)

toastar (573882) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895581)

Throw a key party?

Re:Skype? (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895151)

What makes you think there isn't already a back door in Skype? It's not like we can check out the code and verify that it's clean.

Re:Skype? (1)

cinky (2632165) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895597)

I'm sure I've read that m$ has patented a technology for eavesdropping on VOIP communication...

Re:Skype? (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895229)

How does Skype deal with this anyway?

Other than gathering data on connection times and destinations, frequencies, and statistical correlation techniques, I'd long assumed traditional wiretap is dead.

Am I incorrect?

If terrorists talk over Skype and it's important enough there are ways to decrypt or decode the conversations. At this point in time it;s expensive to do and the FBI wants to empower itself so it can do surveillance on the massive scale.

But there hasn't been a serious terrorist attack since 9/11. It's just not worth it to most of us to do this because there just aren't that many terrorists. It's the unintended consequences that people are concerned about, letting law enforcement use drones is bad enough and now they want us to strip naked to get on airplanes and check our harddrives too? Where does it end?

FIRST! (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39894957)

GoodBye Freedom! Hello FBI!

Oh... yeah... (2)

CodeHxr (2471822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39894979)

Because we don't have enough problems with crackers already!

Re:Oh... yeah... (4, Funny)

doston (2372830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895017)

Because we don't have enough problems with crackers already!

This just adds a little salt to that cracker.

Re:Oh... yeah... (1)

CodeHxr (2471822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895077)

Love it. Imaginary +1 funny for you :)

Re:Oh... yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895479)

Because we don't have enough problems with crackers already!

This just adds a little salt to that cracker.

They want to taste the rainbow table, so they'll just make it illegal to add the salt.

Re:Oh... yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895323)

Because we don't have enough problems with crackers already!

You're right. I think the root of the problem is that Congress has too many stale white squares screwing everything up.

How many FBI agents does it take.... (0)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895001)

If the FBI was actually able to hire the best and the brightest, then there would be no no need for a "wiretap-friendly" software. Social networking sites are the easiest. VoIP, IM, and E-mail is just a matter of Wireshark and the proper filters applied. Maybe they need to put up some job advertisements on /.

Re:How many FBI agents does it take.... (2)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895247)

If the FBI was actually able to hire the best and the brightest, then there would be no no need for a "wiretap-friendly" software. Social networking sites are the easiest. VoIP, IM, and E-mail is just a matter of Wireshark and the proper filters applied.

Maybe they need to put up some job advertisements on /.

They want to save money. It's not a matter of them being able to hire the best and brightest, they want to do it for free.

Re:How many FBI agents does it take.... (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895561)

They're bureaucrats, they want something nice and official. File a piece of paper in triplicate, get a recorded conversation. Nothing too messy, error prone and work intensive. If you have to do the work and you fail, it's your ass but if it's nice and bureaucratic you can blame "the process."

Re:How many FBI agents does it take.... (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895607)

"They want to save money. It's not a matter of them being able to hire the best and brightest, they want to do it for free."

No, they don't even want to do it for free. They want to do it AT YOUR EXPENSE.

Re:How many FBI agents does it take.... (2)

SilentStaid (1474575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895455)

This is legislation to make it legal, and they're talking about legislation to make it *required*... this has nothing to do with needing technical prowess. Right now, Facebook is able to tell them to shove it (not that they would) and they have to deal with it. This will not only preclude them from having to have the proper technical staff, but it will also allow them to not have to worry about breaking each new technology as it emerges.

In law, there's two words that should scare you when it comes to something of this nature. 'Notwithstanding,' because it literally means everything you thought you knew has changed and 'vague,' as in this law is so vague a 5 year old with a Phoenix Wright obsession could convince a grand jury that everything from a can and two strings to telepathy could fall under "communication medium."

The FBI is thinking long term - they could (continue to) cut backroom deals with providers and wade through red tape along the way, or they could get this to happen. It's a power game, and they're playing for keeps. I don't believe that they're an evil organization, far from it - they have the best intentions... but certain roads are lined with those kinds of things.

What an age we live in! (4, Insightful)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895025)

Security has gotten so good these days that all the holes in security we used to defend against are now be mandated by government to be put back in! In all the genius lets put all our data at risk again. Provide a backdoor for one party on the Internet and you provide a backdoor for everybody. We need more attack vectors!

I get wanting to be able to monitor data, there is zero reason this should be easy however.

Hand over your keys! (1)

ZaDeaux (647798) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895029)

Handing over your private encryption keys to the FBI and leveraging existing wire taps with ISPs could accomplish the same thing. Not? Not much need to re-write software to capture data since all they really need is inside your tunnels.

Re:Hand over your keys! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895529)

"Not much need to re-write software to capture data since all they really want is inside your tunnels."

There, FTFY. They want inside. There is no genuine need.

FBI: We Need more Hack-Ready Web Sites (4, Insightful)

DeWinterZero (1757754) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895033)

What could possibly go wrong...?

They should pay to build it. (1, Flamebait)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895047)

They always say they need this or that then want to pass the bill to the industry and consumer.

Second why do they need this? If it's to fight terrorism then I'm all for it but if it's to fight "drugs" and "crime" then I'm totally against it.

The FBI bill should be completely restricted to terrorism investigations only and not "crime" or "law enforcement" or "drugs", and no they shouldn't be allowed to use the "child porn" language to sneak "crime" and "drugs" in. The main reason the internet doesn't trust the FBI and law enforcement is because while they talk about wanting to use their new powers to fight terrorists and pedophiles when we look at the bill we always find copyright infringement, piracy, drugs, and "crime" in there that we politically don't want in there.

Re:They should pay to build it. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895143)

If it's to fight terrorism then I'm all for it but if it's to fight "drugs" and "crime" then I'm totally against it.

I'm only for it if it's FOR THE CHILDREN!

Re:They should pay to build it. (2)

SilentStaid (1474575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895523)

I'm only for it if it's for me. I'd like to have a backdoor built into all of the FBIs communication so that I can make sure that they're on the level for everyone else.

Re:They should pay to build it. (1)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895291)

lol, ok, lets set up this huge system of spying to fight the terrorists... ...and lets say there aren't many terrorist out there so there's not much to do with the system... ...what does any self serving bureaucracy do?..

Labels things that were not considered terrorism as terrorism. Use encryption? Terrorist!, Don't pay your child support? Terrorist!. Visit a protest? Terrorist! Child porn is Terrorism! Drug users are Terrorists! The list never ends.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/ter%C2%B7ror%C2%B7ist-noun-anyone-who-disagrees-with-the-government-2.html [washingtonsblog.com]

Re:They should pay to build it. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895405)

lol, ok, lets set up this huge system of spying to fight the terrorists... ...and lets say there aren't many terrorist out there so there's not much to do with the system... ...what does any self serving bureaucracy do?..

Labels things that were not considered terrorism as terrorism. Use encryption? Terrorist!, Don't pay your child support? Terrorist!. Visit a protest? Terrorist! Child porn is Terrorism! Drug users are Terrorists! The list never ends.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/ter%C2%B7ror%C2%B7ist-noun-anyone-who-disagrees-with-the-government-2.html [washingtonsblog.com]

That is why the language has to be very specific. The language should identify exactly what terrorism is or isn't and what this surveillance can be used for. Otherwise I'm not going to support it. This trend of greatly trying to expand police powers and using extremely vague language in bills like "illegal activities" and "crime" is horrible for communities as anyone can be a criminal but most people aren't ever a terrorist.

The more you tighten your grip, FBI... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895049)

The more criminals will slip through your fingers... by using communications methods you can't intercept, either through end to end encryption, or by other means. The only people you're likely to catch after basically announcing you're going to be listening in are people stupid enough to use compromised means of communication.

I guess what I'm saying is, only a moron would plan a heist (or kidnapping, etc.) via Skype, etc.

The stupid criminal theory (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895265)

The FBI operates on the "stupid crook theory," which basically states that there are no criminal masterminds out there, just idiots who will use systems with widely publicized law enforcement back doors.

Re:The stupid criminal theory (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895415)

The FBI operates on the "stupid crook theory," which basically states that there are no criminal masterminds out there, just idiots who will use systems with widely publicized law enforcement back doors.

Or, if you can't beat them at their own game, make them play yours [slashdot.org] .

warrant (3, Insightful)

Triv (181010) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895067)

I don't care if websites are "wiretap-ready." Phones already are.

What I care about is if data can be collected (not used; COLLECTED) from these sites wiretap-ready sites without a warrant.

Shameless (5, Insightful)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895071)

And this, of course, is all "to protect our democratic way of life".

Coming up soon: Government-mandated Java and PHP methods that your website code will have to call.

If Syria or China were doing this, it would be called tyranny or dictatorship.

Re:Shameless (1)

BeerCat (685972) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895335)

Meanwhile, the black hats are rubbing their hands with glee - why go to the trouble of researching 0-day exploits, when they can merely use the FBI mandated back doors.

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Shameless (1)

SilentStaid (1474575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895543)

If ... China were doing this, it would be called tyranny or dictatorship.

They do do this, and Mao called it communism.

Weakening Our Infrastructure (2)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895079)

Thanks for weakening our infrastructure, FBI! Also, after seeing how widely abused CALEA is, it's the last thing I want to see pushed on the American public.

Re:Weakening Our Infrastructure (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895259)

It's useless. Criminals will just set up their own offshore servers, use encryption, dark nets you name it.

Meanwhile it isn't so much the abuses of CALEA that are the problem, but the lack of security. These things are basically backdoors to the network you live on, and let any old person with the keys (say a Chinese intruder) in.

FBI Mad Their Job is Harder (4, Insightful)

preaction (1526109) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895091)

So the FBI is now mimicking the *AA's: Their job is harder with the Internet, so they make laws to stop the Internet from ruining their old ways of doing things.

"Libtard" Rand Paul opposes this (1, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895119)

Opposes SOPA/CISPA. Opposes warrantless wiretapes or backdoors into websites. - Just thought I'd point that out. - For all the hate directed at him in the other article, I think You and Paul are in 99% agreement on these topics.

Re:"Libtard" Rand Paul opposes this (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895215)

Well, yeah... the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a federal agency, so the Pauls obviously think anything they do is unconstitutional, evil, and wrong.

Re:"Libtard" Rand Paul opposes this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895305)

When you start getting tickets because you watched some porn with anal, and it happens to be illegal in your state... I dont want to hear you crying.

Re:"Libtard" Rand Paul opposes this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895419)

and they are correct in thinking that.

Coming soon... (5, Funny)

netwarerip (2221204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895127)

The Wired Elemental Routine Executable Federal Unlawful Collection Kernel Encryption Datagram

Re:Coming soon... (1)

Bahamut_Omega (811064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895397)

If I could, I'd either have modded you funny or insightful.

Unintended side effects (3, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895149)

If this goes through, does this mean that providers such as Comcast, Verizon, et al, who both provide the physical means of communications and who also offer the services described in the article, will now be treated as telecommunication companies, subject to all the rules and regulations therein?

If so, does that mean we can finally get competition for broadband without those companies wanting to charge exorbitant rates to competitors for line usage?

What a great idea! (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895157)

I know quite a few dictators who would agree with this brilliant idea. Much easier to find the activists this way.

We should set about to implementing it right away!

Sorry but..... (5, Interesting)

Grayhand (2610049) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895161)

There's nothing in the Constitution that says we have to make invading our privacy easier on them. Already we are facing all our car's movements being trackable and now they want to make sure every form of communication is easily accessible. At what point does unreasonable search and seizure kick in? This almost ties into the TSA story. The Supreme Court needs to define "Unreasonable search and seizure" since the government seems to think ALL search and seizure is reasonable. Need I bring up drug forfeiture? You can take a tourist on a day fishing trip and if he has a brick of cocaine with him they seize your boat and the government feels that's reasonable even when you had no way to know without illegally searching your customer.

If you don't support the war on drugs, piracy... (4, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895167)

In meetings with industry representatives, the White House, and U.S. senators, senior FBI officials argue the dramatic shift in communication from the telephone system to the Internet has made it far more difficult for agents to wiretap Americans suspected of illegal activities, CNET has learned.

Do not accept any bill which contains overly broad or vague language. Be watchful of FBI objectives which claim to focus on "illegal activities" and "crime". Also be careful of emotional keywords like "kiddie porn" and "pedophiles".

When it comes to fighting terrorism I'm for the FBI. When it comes to fighting pedophiles I'm for the FBI. When it comes to fighting "illegal activities" and "crime" I'm not for the FBI because that isn't specific enough to give them broad powers. Since everyone is a criminal, if we empower them to fight "illegal activities" we are giving them the power to abuse entire communities in the name of combating "illegal activities" and "crime". The purpose of the FBI should be to protect communities, and we universally agree that terrorists and pedophiles are the bad guys regardless of our political stance on other issues.

We need bills which remove the political issues such as piracy, "illegal activities" and crime and focus more on terrorism and violence. If someone is a serial killer the FBI should be able to do a wiretap, but don't want to see the day when the FBI sees everything we do online and starts arresting people on piracy and other trivial offenses. Yes some people are going to say these offenses are economic crimes, but these offenses aren't good enough to put backdoors in every website.

Re:If you don't support the war on drugs, piracy.. (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895245)

When it comes to fighting terrorism I'm for the FBI.

Do you realize that every single domestic terror plot foiled by the FBI was created by the FBI?

Re:If you don't support the war on drugs, piracy.. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895327)

When it comes to fighting terrorism I'm for the FBI.

Do you realize that every single domestic terror plot foiled by the FBI was created by the FBI?

I'm aware. But if someone is trying to talk you into bombing innocent people and you don't have a conscience about that or any reservations about loss of life then you're still a threat to society. I do understand that the FBI could trick people into saying stuff and every case is different, but I also recognize that there are real terrorists out there and this is the only way to catch them.

How do you catch the next abortion clinic bombing terrorist if you don't do a sting? If you have a better way of doing stings then why not suggest some better ways? But the fact is we cannot as a society allow extremist domestic terrorism and that includes the KKK, the Nazi's, the Militias, anyone who wants to be violent.

Re:If you don't support the war on drugs, piracy.. (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895447)

But if someone is trying to talk you into bombing innocent people and you don't have a conscience about that or any reservations about loss of life then you're still a threat to society

I thought we were talking about the FBI, not republicans.

In all seriousness though, if you are trying to talk an innocent person into bombing people and you don't have a conscience about that, then you're a threat to society.

Re:If you don't support the war on drugs, piracy.. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895457)

But if someone is trying to talk you into bombing innocent people and you don't have a conscience about that or any reservations about loss of life then you're still a threat to society

I thought we were talking about the FBI, not republicans.

In all seriousness though, if you are trying to talk an innocent person into bombing people and you don't have a conscience about that, then you're a threat to society.

You still haven't answered the question. How do you catch a terrorist without pretending to be one?

Re:If you don't support the war on drugs, piracy.. (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895475)

That's a very tricky statement. Many terrorist cells are tracked by FBI informants, and of course said informants must take an active role as part of their undercover persona.

The key thing to ask is whether or not the terrorists would have acted without the FBI presence. It seems to me that in many cases the answer is clearly yes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html [nytimes.com]

We need to overthrow the government... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895183)

When a government fails to protect those rights, it is not only the right, but also the duty of the people to overthrow that government. In its place, the people should establish a government that is designed to protect those rights. Governments are rarely overthrown, and should not be overthrown for trivial reasons. In this case, a long history of abuses has led the colonists to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Help tThen Out (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895189)

Make it real easy for them to monitor what you are doing. Start CC'ing the head of the FBI on all your emails etc. and send him daily reports as to what you are doing as well as well. You should also sen this required data to the members that sit on the committees approving such a thing.

Dear FBI (4, Funny)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895193)

Dearest agents of the FBI,

It should please you to know that all of my websites are already amenable to wiretapping, and my networks are all designed to allow you to insert your sniffer wherever you want. Please do note, however, that most of my internal support services communicate via the pDonkey protocol, where all data is encoded as a series of pictures of donkeys copulating.

It will be left to you to decode messages transmitted in this manner, as the protocol is intended to send a clear message to any eavesdro[ppers on our secure systems. The message is "Fuck you, jackass".

Sincerely,

Sarten X

Crack in the Back (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895201)

So let's say someone manages to find a crack in the backdoor.
Via this crack they detect criminal activity at an investment bank.
They collect incriminating evidence and turn it over to the FBI.
Rhetorical question: Who goes to jail?

Re:Crack in the Back (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895433)

Well, that's easy, just use the process of elimination.

The FBI can't go to jail, obviously.

The investment banker won't go to jail.

Therefore it would be the guy turning over the information. There's nobody else left in the system!

Quantico Circuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895205)

There was an interview with Babak Pasdar about the so called "Quantico Circuit":

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/03/whistleblower-f/

ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895207)

Welcome to fascist America! Now, lets see those papers, or we have to ship you off to G-Bay.

IPv6 and peer-to-peer communication (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895231)

IPv4 makes it necessary to have in-betweens like Skype for VoIP calls. With the advent of IPv6, encrypted phone conversations can take place without middle-men. So far IPv6 adoption has been so slow that nobody has actively attacked it or tried to prevent it from spreading. But sooner or later the corporations and the government are going to wake up to the challenge and put up some road blocks. Maybe they'll rush an IPv7 specification and force Cisco, Google and others to adopt it overnight. It'll be great but will prevent the wide use of end-to-end encryption.

Another possibility (maybe already in active use) is to lean on the certificate authorities to have forged TLS certificates appear authentic.

Dear FBI (1, Insightful)

anom (809433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895251)

Fuck you.

That is all.

Re:Dear FBI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895517)

Fuck Facebook.

Re:Dear FBI (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895577)

No, you left out the "and die!" part.

wrong end to wiretap ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895441)

wiretap at the isp, not the hosting provider's, end. the former is an incestigative tool, the latter is a fishing expedition.

Eh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895461)

The fuckers were snooping far too much already anyway. Or was that the NSA? Now the FBI wants its own cookie jar? Not playing well together then, what? Get a grip, you government sanctioned kiddie fiddling terrorists, you. Oh wait, that's the TSA. Sorry. All those agencies, so confusing.

Global Boycott of US Web Enterprises (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895481)

Go ahead punks...make my day...

We'll get right on that... (1)

Bigsquid.1776 (2554998) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895493)

hey FBI... we'll get back to you when we're done with that.

time to step up the plate, GNU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895501)

where is a good GPL3 video over IP server and client?

Death of Programming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39895531)

1. Oracle wins judgment against Google / Android and everything using the Java API belongs to them.
2. Congress mandates that all web sites must include exploitable security defects.

That's okay. There are plenty of other first world nations that want talented software developers.

Big win for open source. (2)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 2 years ago | (#39895603)

This could be a big win for open source. Are you concerned about your privacy? Then you'd better not be running proprietary mail or web software because the government backdoors are pre-installed (actually, they're probably there already today, but now you'll know for sure). Only if you're running open source will you be able to inspect the code yourself, verify that there are no government backdoors, or remove them if they are present. I'm sure the clever among us will even go as far as to send the FBI to a honeypot while directing private communications to the real servers.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>