×

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!

Wikileaks Publishes FBI VoIP Surveillance Docs

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the watching-the-watchers dept.

Communications 145

An anonymous reader writes "The folks on wikileaks have published a new interesting and shocking report: FBI Electronic Surveillance Needs for Carrier-Grade Voice over Packet (CGVoP) Service. The 88 paged document, which is part of the CALEA Implementation Plan was published in January 2003 and describes in detail all needs for surveillance of phone calls made via data services like the internet. Wikileaks has not published any analysis yet, so maybe some of the techies hanging around this end of the internet are interested in taking that one on."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

145 comments

paradigm shift (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#22761900)

It's defiantly time to roll shit like this back. Which is why we really need a paradigm shift in Washington. Both McCain and Clinton are Washington "business as usual". That leave one obvious choice, and I'm not talking about Ralph.

Re:paradigm shift (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22761918)

I don't think Oprah is running.

Re:paradigm shift (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22761922)

If you think Ackbar Hussein Osama is going to be any bigger on individual rights than Grandpa and the Bitch, then you are sadly mistaken.

Re:paradigm shift (4, Insightful)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762022)

It is at least a talking point of the Democrats. But one which I wouldn't trust Hillary to follow. And there is no question that McCain couldn't give a rat's ass about your privacy as to the FBI.

So yes, Obama is a better pick on individual rights than either of the alternatives.

Whether it will be a huge difference, or whether he will remain true to this, noone can be sure. As in life, there are no guarantees in politics.

Re:paradigm shift (1, Funny)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762092)

Yeah right, one of Obama's main accomplishments in the Illinois state senate was requiring that police interrogations be video taped in order to be admissible in court (or was it restricted to confessions? I honestly don't recall). None-the-less, his crown jewel achievement is **MORE** surveillance!

Re:paradigm shift (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762122)

Recording police interrogations is a manifestly good thing. It ensures, among other things, that the police can't simply beat you until you confess.

Surveillance of public servants and surveillance of the general populace aren't even remotely similar.

MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL (1)

aprilsound (412645) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762176)

The parent is insightful. I don't know why it's at -1. Video recording of interrogation keeps cops honest. GP is either stupid or trolling and *should* be modded down.

Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22763138)

It was at -1 because all of my posts start at -1. Either /. is punishing me or all AC posts now start at -1 instead of 0. I've seen a lot of AC posts at -1 lately so I'm guessing this is a policy change by /.

Re:paradigm shift (2, Insightful)

utopianfiat (774016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762466)

Read what you write before you post it, because I'm not sure you actually realize what you just said. If so, hope your Karma enjoys its vacation.

You would rather have police locked in a room with someone and walk out with a supposedly signed confession disposition when a videotape would have proved it forged? Say what you want about "serve and protect", there are good cops, but it's the bad cops that ruin things for the rest of us.

Re:paradigm shift (1)

Molochi (555357) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762702)

Monitoring agents of the government and subsuming their authority to the accused's peers (the jury) as reviewers of that information, is not a bad thing. As long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of the accused. I can see (as any patriotic American could) that the 5th amendment would demand all responses by the accused be edited out.

Re:paradigm shift (1)

Cardcaptor_RLH85 (891550) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763118)

I wouldn't edit out the responses unless the accused wasn't under arrest yet and just being questioned or if the accused hadn't been read his Miranda rights. Don't forget, "Everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." If the accused is aware of that right then anything said during the interrogation can be used as evidence.

Re:paradigm shift (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762392)

You realize you are placing an awful lot of faith in the unknown with that statement right? Obama has done nothing to show that he would be any different then the others but you are willing to cut him a pass because you don't know.

To me, that doesn't seem to rational. But hey, a good majority of Americans believe an unseeable, untouchable, and magical being exists so I guess anything is possible.

Re:paradigm shift (5, Informative)

scionite0 (1160479) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762470)

Obama has done nothing to show that he would be any different then the others but you are willing to cut him a pass because you don't know.

Senator Obama's qualifications Include a J.D. in constitutional law from Harvard, He was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, and he worked as a community organizer and later as a lawyer representing community organizers on voting rights and discrimination issues.

So yeah I think that there is some evidence that he might have a better understanding of and respect for the constitution of the United States of America.

this can be confirmed with a simple wikipedia [wikipedia.org] search or set of google searches (or by reading his first book, Dreams from My Father).



Just because something is not yet proven does not mean that no evidence exists.

Re:paradigm shift (0, Troll)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762624)

So you are telling us that a lawyer gives a rats ass about our rights? Sorry but I'll believe it when I see it. Most politicians study law so they can abuse our rights, not preserve them.

Re:paradigm shift (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762806)

So you are telling us that a lawyer gives a rats ass about our rights?
Wow, what a stupid thing to say.

Re:paradigm shift (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22763622)

So you are telling us that a lawyer gives a rats ass about our rights?
PopeRatzo (965947) Wow, what a stupid thing to say.
Oh Pope Ratzo, your just taking that personal we know the poster doesn't mean your ass in particular.

Re:paradigm shift (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763022)

Clinton had some great credentials too but we still had ruby ridge, Waco, and the development of free speech zones and the DMCA under his expert leadership.

I repeat. Obama has _done_ nothing to _show_ he is any different from anyone else on the stage. He has been in office enough that his record should be known by now if he did.

Re:paradigm shift (1)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22765110)

I repeat. Obama has _done_ nothing to _show_ he is any different from anyone else on the stage. He has been in office enough that his record should be known by now if he did.
Because you didn't heard about it on television.

Read a book or something. Try wikipedia, or google it.

His record IS known. He was a civil rights attorney before he got into politics. Just because you are ignorant, doesn't mean that ignorance is the reality. Think outside the box.

Re:paradigm shift (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22763292)

"Just because something is not yet proven does not mean that no evidence exists. "

Sweet as man, so where is the evidence. Real evidence, not what the book says.

Re:paradigm shift (1)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762584)

You realize you are placing an awful lot of faith in the unknown with that statement right?
Not really.

The other two options are clearly not in my best interest.

Obama has done enough in life to make it clear that he's a competent person who doesn't necessarily want to turn the country into a theocracy or a fascist state. That's pretty much all I'm looking for this election year.

Re:paradigm shift (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763046)

Obama has done enough in life to make it clear that he's a competent person who doesn't necessarily want to turn the country into a theocracy or a fascist state. That's pretty much all I'm looking for this election year.
But that does or says nothing for civil rights. It is more or less a He is qualified because he isn't "them" which is the same as blind faith. He has not done anything to demonstrate that once in office, he would do anything any different.

And if you seriously think any of the candidates want to turn the country into a theocracy or a fascist state, you need to take a course on politics and hopefully get so stoned on election day that you don't get off of the couch. I don't understand what this irrational fear of religious or spiritual people is about, but I can tell you that it is unfounded.

Re:paradigm shift (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22763268)

I don't understand what this irrational fear of religious or spiritual people is about, but I can tell you that it is unfounded.

Suppose you came to work one morning and found that you were the only person among your colleagues, friends, and the people in your vanpool who hadn't yet come to accept the death, ascension, and imminent return of Elvis Presley.

Are you afraid yet? But wait, you haven't heard the good news about what the King has in store for you!

"Religion and spirituality" are that scary, and that stupid.

I think it's time we found some leaders to follow who have a greater apprehension of reality than most eight-year-olds do.

Re:paradigm shift (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763388)

When given three choices, and two of them are obviously bad, but the third is unknown, which one do you choose? Do you pick one of the choices that you know is bad, or do you take the chance on the third option? Are you seriously suggesting that it is irrational to choose the option that at least has a possibility of being something different?

Re:paradigm shift (1)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22765040)

I don't understand what this irrational fear of religious or spiritual people is about, but I can tell you that it is unfounded.
I can tell you that the sky is green, but it doesn't mean you should take my word for it.

Re:paradigm shift (4, Interesting)

Bloopie (991306) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762570)

If you think Ackbar Hussein Osama is going to be any bigger on individual rights than Grandpa and the Bitch, then you are sadly mistaken.

It's interesting that you should refer to "Barack" as "Ackbar." Admiral Ackbar was an accomplished leader of the Rebel Alliance, which was the "good" side in the Star Wars universe. He spent much of his career fighting the (evil) Galactic Empire.

It's telling that you should be using the name in a derogatory way.

In any case, I'm not the biggest expert in Star Wars, unlike some here, but evidently at some point Ackbar was wrongly accused of treason by a politically-motivated opponent. We'll have to watch Fox News over the next several months to find out how much life imitates art.

Re:paradigm shift (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762652)

Allahu Ackbar!

Re:paradigm shift (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22763786)

"It's a trap!!" :-P

Re:paradigm shift (4, Insightful)

Divebus (860563) | more than 6 years ago | (#22761942)

Time to take Thomas Jefferson's advice?

Re:paradigm shift (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22761964)

I think you're the wrong side of the gold rush for that to work any more......

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's pretty much the point when the US that he envisioned more or less got replaced with what you have now.

Re:paradigm shift (2, Interesting)

Threni (635302) | more than 6 years ago | (#22761976)

Did Jefferson mention encryption? It's probably more likely to happen than getting people to go outside and get killed by the police or whatever.

Re:paradigm shift (4, Informative)

dbolger (161340) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762146)

You mean "Don't talk about what you have done or what you are going to do [thinkexist.com] (at least over an unsecured medium)"? ;)

Re:paradigm shift (2, Insightful)

WGFCrafty (1062506) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762546)

""I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -TJ

I think that one fits too.

Re:paradigm shift (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762248)

Time to take Thomas Jefferson's advice?

and what advice would that be?

That of the President who launched convert operations against the Barbary pirates?

The President who doubled the size of the U.S. in the Louisiana Purchase? The U.S. would become a continental empire in less than fifty years.

The President who waged economic war against Britain and France? Thomas Jefferson: Foreign Affairs [millercenter.org]

The President who died as the Erie Canal and the Industrial Revolution was putting an end to the agrarian Republic - the limited government - of his dreams?

Re:paradigm shift (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762274)

That of the President who launched convert operations against the Barbary pirates?
It is widely known that the Barbary pirates had become Muslims and were in need of President-sanctioned operations to convert them back to Christianity.

Re:paradigm shift (1)

idiotwithastick (1036612) | more than 6 years ago | (#22761944)

I'd agree that anarchy would solve the problem quite nicely.

Re:paradigm shift (4, Interesting)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22761988)

Anarchy exists nowhere but in the individual mind.

In any society of human individuals greater than one, there will always evolve some system of governance.

It is not a question of whether you will lose any freedom, but of how much you will lose.

Re:paradigm shift (4, Insightful)

bug1 (96678) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762120)

It is said that Anarchy is the absence of rulers, not the absence of rule.

Take the free software movement as an example... the movement isn't ruled by anyone, the society of human individuals (programmers) can license their work any way they like, but they _choose_ to push for freedom on to others.

Those who are free to choose are not ruled.

don't know what you're talking about (2, Informative)

sentientbrendan (316150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763464)

>It is said that Anarchy is the absence of rulers, not the absence of rule.
said by who? Let me guess, he was an "anarchist," by which I mean high school drop out living in his mom's basement, complaining that society would be "so much more awesome" if there weren't any rules, and he didn't have to keep his room clean.

Anarchy:
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."''

Any social endeavor has politics and power relationships and de facto governing processes by which collective decisions are made, they even exist within families and other tiny social units. Anarchy is just a society where those relationships are no longer functional and stable. You have groups competing for power without a mediator and chaos persists (e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan).

Humans can't survive in anarchy because we are social animals, and require cooperation and certain kinds of power relationships to survive. People naturally form social structures with leaders and followers, it's part of basic human psychology.

Even the free software movement has leaders with specific powers that they can enforce. That you think otherwise just goes to show that you've never contributed. Linus doesn't let any patches into mainline Linux that he doesn't want to, and that effectively kills those patches. Other organizations have even more stringent policies. To commit to FSF, Mono, and many other projects and organizations you must turn over your copyright to them, so that they can relicense it under whatever terms they want (presumably, the next version of the GPL, but who knows?).

Often a company is responsible for all of the high level design of a product, and controls the repository, and open source developers are either hired by said company to do the work, or are on the periphery.

Even if a specific company isn't responsible for high level design, some people are de facto designers. This isn't that different than in a company, and these relationships naturally form even if they aren't dictated, otherwise the project falls apart.

Open source isn't really a "governing model," it's just the same old human behavior and practices, but with a new software license.

Re:don't know what you're talking about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22764622)

Humans can't survive in anarchy

Are humans inherently good, inherently bad, or neither?

If humans are inherently good, then "law" imposed upon them is an unnecessary burden.

If humans are neither, then the "law" imposed upon them shapes them into what the greater society wishes them to be.

If humans are inherently bad, then no amount of "law" will save us.

Re:don't know what you're talking about (1)

bug1 (96678) | more than 6 years ago | (#22765162)

"That you think otherwise just goes to show that you've never contributed."

And

"... Thus showing that you understand neither anarchy nor the free software movement." from another response

Well thanks for nothing... im glad i didnt spend five years with busybox and debian to try and impress you two.

If you mind isnt free, your body will never be.

Re:paradigm shift (1)

deathguppie (768263) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763476)

yes those who are free to chose are not ruled..

As long as they all chose the same thing.

I mean come on. Rule of law or rule of philosophy, or rule of rule.. whatever. Being an anarchist is not a solution. It's a fashion that was created so ugly people could have a style.

Re:paradigm shift (1)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22764260)

Take the free software movement as an example... the movement isn't ruled by anyone, the society of human individuals (programmers) can license their work any way they like, but they _choose_ to push for freedom on to others.

... Thus showing that you understand neither anarchy nor the free software movement.

Free software is the perfect example of governance. It arises from the grassroots, the workers writing the software, but it is there nevertheless. Take a look at projects like Debian. "Debian" is essentially defined by its huge policy document [debian.org] , a body of law which defines what does and what does not get distributed. Debian even has a constitution [debian.org] , a leader [debian.org] , elected annually, a cabinet [debian.org] (technical committee), law enforcement (the security guys) etc.

And it's not just Debian. FSF, Fedora, FreeBSD all have similar organisations.

So even if you publish your own software on your own private website eventually you'll have to conform (or your software will be packaged to conform) to all this law, if you ever want it in a major distribution.

Rich.

Re:paradigm shift (1)

bug1 (96678) | more than 6 years ago | (#22765132)

"So even if you publish your own software on your own private website eventually you'll have to conform (or your software will be packaged to conform) to all this law, if you ever want it in a major distribution."

If you dont want to conform to debians rules then Fork and be Free.

Debians rules are imposed on debian developers by debian developers. Their rules imposed on YOU, they may apply their rules to your work if they are allowed and they want it, but they arent imposing on you.

In free software, or any voluntary organization, the power is at the bottom, not at the top.

Re:paradigm shift (0, Offtopic)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762352)

That individual's presidentail campaign reminds me of FDR's and Kennedy's campaigns - middle-of-the-road, until they took office and then the progressive streak began in earnest....

There is an ancient Masai battle cry to give the warriors strength, bravery and honor in battle, and that cry is

OBAMA

I call BS (4, Informative)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762488)

When used properly with *warrants*, wiretapping is an important law enforcement tool. Don't go confusing bad behavior by the Government with necessary law enforcement tools.

The capability is needed, but so is proper oversight and protection of Consitutional rights. Then again all you wanted was to squeeze in your Obama ad ;)

Re:paradigm shift (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762662)

What a bunch of bullshit. You have no idea what Obama would do with constitutional issues like this. Moreover, you should suspect his motives since his known long-term associates (Wright, Resko and others) have starkly divisive agendas motivated by the self-interest of a specific and narrowly defined subgroup of the American population. If you can't see the Obama powergrab, you aren't looking or maybe you did drink the kool-aid. In any case, you'd be electing another Bush, just on the left side of the fence.

Re:paradigm shift (1)

evwah (954864) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762772)

Ron Paul?

Re:paradigm shift (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762936)

Go back to WoW!!!! Ron Paul doesn't exist!!!! He is the worst NAZI pathetic LOSER in the history of our country, transvestite as Libertarian!!! Read and Listen to his ideas!!!! He is just a covert-nazi using you retards with low wages on the IT industry to jumpstart himself!!! You don't understand anything about real life, so just go back to smoke pot, eat cold pizza and play WoW!!!

Obama. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762846)

DNC Puppet. Get over "hope" and "change." It's emo BS.

You have to fight for your rights, not elect a saviour.

Obama: Paradigm shift? (1)

eyendall (953949) | more than 6 years ago | (#22764568)

Although I have no major problems with Obama (or Clinton for that matter) I don't hear Obama talking about rolling-back the egregious constitutional violations of the Bush-Cheney era. He is promising a change of style but I have not seen or heard anything about any change of substance. Just a kinder, gentler, politician. Business more or less as usual.

Anyone who would want to be President (Senator...etc. etc.) should be automatically disqualified from running for office. All is ego and power.

PGPfone, where are you? (4, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22761952)

We desperately need a personal Internet telephony program that has full support for encryption. PGPfone was left unmaintained a decade ago, and Ekiga won't have encryption support until version 3.0. It's like there's a conspiracy to leave the public without such a basic tool.

Re:PGPfone, where are you? (4, Informative)

mikiN (75494) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762050)

Twinkle [twinklephone.com] ?
It handles encryption using ZRTP [wikipedia.org] /SRTP [wikipedia.org] and can do point-to-point (IP2IP) calls like good'ole Speak Freely.

Re:PGPfone, where are you? (1)

bdjacobson (1094909) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762482)

Twinkle [twinklephone.com] ?
It handles encryption using ZRTP [wikipedia.org] /SRTP [wikipedia.org] and can do point-to-point (IP2IP) calls like good'ole Speak Freely.
If I can't even convince my friends who use Pidgin already, to install PidginEncryption, how am I supposed to get them to use VOIP encryption?

"Well, it won't happen to me..."
Part of me wants to support further government wiretaps so that more abuses come to light and we can hopefully then convince people that privacy is important. But the other part hates it when innocent people are tortured for things they did not do.

So what's the right course of action? I'm starting to wonder if I'm one of the few people that sees these things as problems, and if they are indeed problems, because surely if they were, more people would care about them. Are we just paranoid freaks?

Re:PGPfone, where are you? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762064)

An open GSM phone is also needed. It should have the RF/Control in one module and the digital audio in a second.
The second module needs to support PKI, opto-isolation, and have it's own power converter. The certificates need to be in a mini-sd smart card with tamper protection so they can't be copied at check points.

Re:PGPfone, where are you? (5, Informative)

CNeb96 (60366) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762170)

It was replaced by zphone http://www.zfoneproject.com/ [zfoneproject.com] alive and kicking and better.

Q: What is Zfone?

A: Zfone is my new secure VoIP phone software which lets you make secure encrypted phone calls over the Internet. The ZRTP protocol used by Zfone will soon be integrated into many standalone secure VoIP clients, but today we have a software product that lets you turn your existing VoIP client into a secure phone. The current Zfone software runs in the Internet protocol stack on any Windows XP, Mac OS X, or Linux PC, and intercepts and filters all the VoIP packets as they go in and out of the machine, and secures the call on the fly. You can use a variety of different software VoIP clients to make a VoIP call. The Zfone software detects when the call starts, and initiates a cryptographic key agreement between the two parties, and then proceeds to encrypt and decrypt the voice packets. It has its own little separate GUI, telling the user if the call is secure. It's as if Zfone were a "bump on the cord", sitting between the VoIP client and the Internet. Think of it as a bump in the protocol stack.

Re:PGPfone, where are you? (1)

flynn23 (593401) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763290)

This would definitely benefit from being implemented in as many VoIP devices as possible (ie. Linksys SPA-xxxx boxes). Even better if someone can port this to a chip.

Re:PGPfone, where are you? (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762290)

I don't know how many *clients* support TLS, but openser (voip server) definitely does.

It's just too late to reclaim/roll-back any privacy. The horses left the barn YEARS ago. 10+ years anyway. I'm not advocating the untenable position of "I've got nothing to hide, so it's okay." This is just standard operating procedure at this point.

Re:PGPfone, where are you? (1)

reuteler (819104) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762618)

well, if you're an asterisk user and you have a provider who uses the IAX protocol (vitelity, callwithus, or point to point to another server) asterisk will encrypt all IAX channels -- you just have to add encryption=aes128 to the entry in iax.conf. pretty cool actually. it's not really at the level of the end consumer, yet.. but it's slick.

Re:PGPfone, where are you? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762748)

Actually, I think it's time that all forms of electronic communication incorporated encryption. It should be the default configuration.

As long as we have governments that routinely want to invade our privacy, our routine conversations should make it very costly for them to do so.

Anyone who uses encryption now attracts attention whether it is warranted or not. The only way to allow those who wish to protect their privacy the ability to do it without opening them up to scrutiny is to raise the background so that they disappear.

Anyone who has information they really need to protect also knows ways to not only encrypt but to hide and conceal the communications (steganography, etc).

I just want to see the invasion of privacy by intrusive and paranoid administrations stopped. Make them call a spade a spade. As long as they can just tap in and monitor everyone in secret and using simple technology, they will. By upping the effort and making them come out of their closet to demand keys, passwords, etc, or to demand people not encrypt, it will blow their cover and allow the general public to see what kind of monster is lurking among us.

If at least some of the programmers on various projects would steer them to make encryption the default, they might just save a country.

And I realize some mechanism would be required to allow standard communications applications to intercommunicate but that could also be the cue to users to upgrade to versions that use encryption.

Re:PGPfone, where are you? (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763398)

How about "ssh -f -N -L...."? Tunneling IAX (or MGCP -- SIP is a bit problematic, since it chooses random ports) through SSH is pretty easy to do.

Re:PGPfone, where are you? (1)

profplump (309017) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763576)

Both SIP and IAX are UDP-based, and won't tunnel via SSH's TCP tunnels. And UDP->TCP encapsulation is a bad idea for things like VoIP; you probably don't want to drop 2 seconds of the conversation just because 1 packet got mangled, and you sure don't want to waste bandwidth re-transmitting things that will never be played back.

However, IPSec's 3DES-CBC and AES-CBC modes both re-initialize for each datagram, so it can handle encryption on UDP packets without requiring in-order, complete reception or retransmission. And you can do IPSec pretty transparently at your gateway even in the generating device -- say a desk phone -- doesn't do IPSec or uses a wide range of ports.

Encrypted (2, Insightful)

warrior_s (881715) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762016)

I think its now time that one should start encrypting all voip traffic.. I understand we don't even have https everywhere right now..
use smartphones.. use encrypted voip to make all the phone calls, and use the regular service provider to make emergency calls like 911
I think this is the way to go..

I know some one will say there are attacks possible on encrypted connections... but the question is that its not feasible to attack every connection out there.. atleast make their job as difficult as possible.

Re:Encrypted (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22763192)

Agreed, but the issue is "all" or at least "most". As you probably know, if you send encrypted e-mail, it's like waving a big red flag at the NSA, "Oooh, I'm doing something I don't want you to see!" Unless you do it from an IP address you don't regularly use, you are asking to show up on all kinds of lists you most assuredly do not want to be on. The same would be true of encrypted VOIP. But if we had a mass movement of encryption, it becomes a form of civil disobedience. You may still get on a list, but you'll have so much company the powers that be will have trouble knowing what to make of it. You go from being a black hat to merely grey. Anyone on /. up for organizing this?

Re:Encrypted (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 6 years ago | (#22765392)

I understand we don't even have https everywhere right now..
Mostly because to use https for anything but internal communication between tech-inclined people, you need to pay a tribute to VeriSign or another member of the SSL cert scam group.

And recent changes to Firefox3 make the issue much worse.

Why is this shocking? (5, Informative)

MyNameIsFred (543994) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762030)

I'm trying to figure out why the summary calls this document "shocking." Interesting yes, shocking no. It is well known that the law requires VOIP providers to maintain a capability for law enforcement agencies to wiretap. This requirement has been around for years, and is completely consistent with older "Plain Old Telephone Service." Its not like CALEA is hidden. You can find its website with a quick google. The author of the summary seems to be conflating CALEA with the dustup with the Bush administration and unlawful wiretaps. They are separate issues. Conflating them helps no one.

Re:Why is this shocking? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762114)

I'm inclined to agree. I looked into CALEA a couple of years ago as part of an investigation to see what impacts it might have for universities. Much of the public criticism seemed to assume that it was a way for law enforcement to tap all communications. In fact, it is the exact equivalent of existing wiretaps: they don't get a full feed; they get data for specific authorized interceptions. I admit to some concern about apparent diversion of massive traffic flows. It may be a good idea, but I'd like to see some accountability, even classified accountability. But CALEA isn't designed to provide the kind of access that I find worrisome. I'd much rather see its approach than to see federal agencies sifting through all traffic.

I have no idea why this document is restricted. It is pretty obvious given the goals of CALEA.

Re:Why is this shocking? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762138)

That is exactly the type of thinking I would expect from a follower of The Jew Puppet Bu$Hitler Chimpy McHaliburtin.

I don't know why we tolerate these your Neo-Con ass here at /.

Just wait until Obama wins and we can start the criminal convictions of bigots and haters of freedom, like you.

Re:Why is this shocking? (2, Interesting)

Anon12 (1256996) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762300)

True - but it is interesting, I very surprised they were only assessing the need to access VoIP calls in 2003. That seems pretty late.

Congratulations... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762154)

You've managed to leak information about legal and non-controversial wire taps! This has nothing to do with the Bush adminsitrations controversial action on the subject, and was probably available legally via FOIA request. You, however, decided to be a rebel and leak this important document! Now it's time to bask in the rewards of your conquest:

- No notable policy change.
- Thousands of tax payer dollars probably spent on an internal investigation into who leaked the information
- Thousands of tax payer dollars used in possible legal action by the US government against wikileaks
- Millions spent on undoing any damage.

Thanks, Wikileaks! You're helpfullness never ceases to amaze me.

WTF did acts that could be considered borderline treason become cool?

Re:Congratulations... (5, Insightful)

smolloy (1250188) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762234)

It's frightening that you think leaking information "about legal and non-controversial wire taps" is "borderline treason". If this really is as boring as you think, then why would millions need to be spent to undo any damage, why would the US gov start legal action, and why would there need to be an internal investigation?

Re:Congratulations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22763522)

The problem is TRUST, not what was leaked.

An investigation would need to take place not because the particular leaked information was crucial, but because the FBI DOES handle MANY, MANY things that ARE crucial and ARE vital to national security. If you can't trust an individual to follow security guidelines for minor, trivial things, how can you possibly expect them to follow security guidelines for the important things? It's scary, knowing theres someone out there who would post information they had no right to publish like this.

When I was in the US military, I went through some training where a good deal of very trivial information was classified NOFORN, a minor clearance level. The stuff was public knowledge information. Common sense stuff. Not anything the government needed to be hiding. Why was it classified, then? Mainly as training. Hundreds of people had never worked with classified information and were very shortly thereafter going to be presented some information that was genuinely classified for a legitimitate security reason. People who got caught - even accidentally - walking out with the trivial NOFORN stuff would get in deep trouble. Why? BEcause of the fear that these would be the same people who - accidentally or purposefully - walked out with the SECRET stuff.

The US government could easily go after wikileaks. Why? Because its an excuse. Wikileaks, in openly distributing this document, disregarded the security notice on it. It works the same way as copyright, with the difference being that issues of security carry much more weight across borders and are much more enforceable on the international level. Countries don't like to harbor people (or servers, etc) that helped violate the security practices of another country, because this in turn reflects very badly on them.

I said it could be considered borderline treason, not that it necessarily was. A definition of treason could easily include efforts that counteract the security, government, and safety of a country. Leaking classified information could easily be seen as doing that.

I love how I got modded as a troll for simply suggesting that violating laws and creating potentially major security problems isn't that cool. Thank god you all let us get the cold war over with before you came up with this stupid idea.

Re:Congratulations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22763788)

Thank god you all let us get the cold war over with before you came up with this stupid idea.
No they didn't. The Pentagon Papers (1971) pulled this cat fully out of the bag.

The Left desperately wants a repeat of Vietnam (see Winter Soldier II) and cheers every time am American soldier dies.
I truly fear that the 70s (stagflation and all) is coming back around. The "we are patriotic because we hate America" crowd has always thought this type of crap was cool.

And the sad thing is, they have a lovely echo chamber that tells them it is.

Re:Congratulations... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22764726)

Heh, that "treason" line is a real gem. Sometime during Bush's rule it became unpatriotic to question the government. How strange that this didn't apply during Clinton's years, when it was commonplace for Republicans to argue and complain about military actions while there were troops on the ground OH MY GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN! But Clinton's military actions were successful and Bush's are failing. Go figure.

Re:Congratulations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22764824)

No. No one said it was bad/evil/wrong to question the government. Treason is not questioning the government. We're talking about violating key laws and policies that may or may not have an adverse effect on the security and safety of the country and those who represent it.

Every time people do something like this, it's like a spit in the face of the people and politicians who worked very long and very hard to bring about the Freedom of Information Act.

Re:Congratulations... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762526)

It is funny how some mods attacked your comment. People should start realizing that THERE IS NO (-1) I don't agree .

Public Standards (4, Informative)

chill (34294) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762304)

Yawn. This is the FBI's implementation plan, not some super-secret details of the specs. This is derived from J-STD-025A, J-STD-025B, and EWA 3.0 AMTA docs. Feel free to Google for those. The first and last you should be able to find. The "B" one they want money for, so it is harder to find freely online.

Those detail exactly WHAT and HOW monitoring is going to occur, on a technical level.

And don't get your knickers in a twist about the FBI document. I've already seen one instance where the FBI told a carrier "we want it done this way" and the carrier's lawyers said "no, that isn't legal and we won't do it". Of course, it was probably a result of the software not being implemented in that manner and it would have cost the carrier mucho $$ to do it the FBI's way...

Nothing like a few $$ to prompt the legal dept. to see it your way.

http://www.google.com/search?q=j-std-025&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t [google.com]

Words not found in pdf with a quick search (4, Insightful)

aachrisg (899192) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762434)

The words "warrant" and "judge" do not appear in this document.

Re:Words not found in pdf with a quick search (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762824)

Yes, but the words "Lawfully authorized electronic surveillance" are.

It's routine Big Brother stuff (3, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762626)

There's not much new here. If you're familiar with CALEA, the law that hooked the Government into the phone system big-time, this is basically the same set of requirements the FBI wanted for voice calls. There was a big disagreement in the voice world over in-band signalling. The question was whether a "pen register" warrant authorized access to signalling data that goes over the voice channel, like Touch-Tone tones sent to some non-carrier device. The FBI was bitching about that for years.

The trouble with all this stuff is that Congress didn't mandate proper auditing. Every surveillance event in CALEA ought to be logged by the Judicial Branch, at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. [uscourts.gov] We don't have that.

Re:It's routine Big Brother stuff (1)

ClosetedTechie (1257044) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763012)

I'd hardly call the "pen register" any kind of warrant. It's a court order that the judge has to issue if the government states that the information likely obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The government does not have to show any probable cause or even suspicion of criminal activity by the person under surveillance. The government uses the "pen register" order to wiretap all kinds of information beyond telephone numbers. While the Patriot Act expanded the pen register to any kind of electronic routing information, the government has been getting creative with what is routing information. They've been calling content information routing information.

The Ninth Circuit recently upheld that the government could use the pen register statute to monitor the e-mail addresses that we use on the Internet, who sends us e-mails, the IP addresses that we visit, and the volume of data that we transmit. I don't know about you, but I don't expect the government to do this without first getting a warrant based on probable cause. I don't expect a judge to allow it just because the government thinks that it might be helpful to know my private e-mail addresses or websites that I visit for some investigation (of someone else?).

So where is the line between addressing and content information (i.e., pen register court order v. wiretap warrant)? It's just going to get harder and harder to draw that line with emerging telecom technologies. I think we're already in a telephone call when we use VoIP or anything else so the government should have to get a warrant first. I mean, we make a call to our ISP. Why should the ISP be such a special phone call that the government can wiretap?

Re:It's routine Big Brother stuff (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763338)

The pen register act (title III under the 1986 ECPA) is a privacy law. Prior to the act no judicial order was required because of the fact that individuals making phone calls are disclosing the numbers they dial to a third party (the phone company) and thus should have no expectation of privacy in regard to the numbers they dialed. There is no Constitutional guarantee of privacy for information disclosed to a third party. Law enforcement benefits from the pen register act because court orders granted under the act can be used to compel service providers to collect this information; prior to the act law enforcement had no tool to compel disclosure, and had to collect the information itself (at it's own expense).

Under the Clinton administration law enforcement and courts generally assumed that the pen register act also applied to internet communications. This was under some debate, and Clinton was working to get this codified in law. This eventually occurred under the 2001 Patriot Act.

The Bush administration is widely believed to have violated the act by collecting large numbers of telephone call detail records in an indiscriminate fashion. Prior to the act Bush could have collected all this with no restriction.

In the case of email I certainly don't have any expectation of privacy of either the content or the routing information if I use my ISP's mail servers. This is material that is obviously saved by intermediate storage devices during processing (i.e. RAM, hard disks, etc.). The routing and content must always be disclosed to a 3rd party which means no Constitutional expectation of privacy should be expected.

Bottom line: if you really want your email to be private, you had better encrypt it unless there is some explicit change to the law in the future.

Also, you might want to watch out for texting on cell phones, voicemail captured by the phone company (and by VOIP systems) etc. - these recordings are less protected than a regular phone call.

Re:It's routine Big Brother stuff (1)

ClosetedTechie (1257044) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763668)


I don't think that information transmitted to a third-party is automatically without an expectation of privacy. For example, there's an expectation of privacy in the digits we dial after being connected in a call (PCTDD)- like dialing your account number, routing a call through a calling card company, or routing to a different department/company through the bank's IVR. The government would need to get a warrant to do those searches.

Also, the Supreme Court and other courts have generally protected anonymity on the Internet. That seems to imply an expectation of privacy in e-mail addresses. When we want to post to /. anonymously- isn't that protected? Or, if I'm posting messages related to health, sex, politics, etc, can't I do that anonymously?

Notwithstanding the fact that we're already in a telcomm call on the Internet, I can maybe see how the pen register is analogous to e-mail routed by your ISP, but when it's routed through a third-party like gmail or hotmail, I don't think the government should be able to use the pen register statute to get that information. The same applies for VoIP- it's not the ISP that's actually doing the routing- it's the VoIP service provider. Now, if the government wants to do false friend or pen register analogue at the VoIP or third-party e-mail then fine. I don't think they should be able to be lazy and circumvent the investigatory work simply by saying that someone along the line will use this information for routing. That distinction requires looking into the content of the message at the ISP and then grepping out the potential addressing = a search!

Slashdot looking for "techies"?! (1)

mattr (78516) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762676)

I don't get why a site with "news for nerds" says in a summary
"techies hanging around this end of the internet".

Also the grandparent professes shock when this is already well known.

Can we walk out of preschool please? The subject matter is interesting and important but slashdot needs editors with a college degree.

What is missing is.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762802)

the ability of the FBI, to intercept and change the conversation on both ends. In real time. Very handy feature that is being used by DOD and FBI.

Who pays for this? (1)

Mr. Lwanga (872401) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762932)

Are the VOIP providers being stuck for the bill on this? Implementation of this would be/is a pain, especially for those "VOIP as a service" companies that target corporate customers.

Cisco, Nortel etc. must have a back door for these guys to make work easier for them, either that or somebody is getting rich off contracting voice engineers out to the Feds.

chesting (1)

ImTheDarkcyde (759406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763790)

This has been bugging me for a bit, so I'm just going to get it off my chest, probably get modded flamebait or offtopic too

Everyone on the site seems concerned with privacy, doesn't it make you all incredible hipocrites to say that businesses and government aren't entitled to that too? It's not that I'm for govt spying or companies ravaging consumers, but just saying it's a bit hippocritical to have a wikileaks story frontpage every day after preaching about privacy.

Re:chesting (2, Insightful)

LaskoVortex (1153471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22764006)

"Privacy" as discussed here is about protecting privacy from the government, to whom we pay taxes and who might imprison us, prosecute us, or target us for our beliefs, words, or affiliations. Privacy from the general public is a different issue. Please argue that issue elsewhere as it confuses (and is probably intentionally meant to confuse) the real issue of privacy with regards to the government. If you still don't understand, I'll repeat it in bold face: "Privacy" as discussed here is about protecting privacy from the government.

Don't play or be dumb and confuse the issues.

Re:chesting (1)

macslas'hole (1173441) | more than 6 years ago | (#22764292)

Everyone on the site seems concerned with privacy, doesn't it make you all incredible hipocrites to say that businesses and government aren't entitled to that too?
There is no contradiction here. Government, and government officials when operating in their official capacity, are not entitled to privacy; they are beholden to the people. With businesses, it depends. A sole proprietor is entitled to nearly as much privacy as any other person; he is beholden to himself and his customers. A huge corporation is entitled to much less; it is beholden to all of its shareholders, who may number in the thousands.

Why, exactly, is this "shocking?" (1)

FredThompson (183335) | more than 6 years ago | (#22764560)

Uh...why is this "shocking?" The telephone systems use VOIP and cell phones didn't exist 30 years ago. There were a few portable phones but nothing like today.

That's a serious question. I know, this is Slashdot, the home of foil hats and radial paranoia by broke students...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...