Doest his meant hat if I use a generic Linux box to write some routing or NAT software I must include an FBI module? Is it illegal for Cisco to provide open source LinkSys boxes? Given the attitude that the unexamined conversation is treason shouldnbt the FBI be looking into all calls made using walkie- talkies, between cordless phones, between extension phones? Are corporate PBXes exempted? Good thing that Bombay is now called Mumbai b otherwise think of all the conversations that would be flagged as dangerous. -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net] Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 08:00 To: ip@v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] FBI plans new Net-tapping push Begin forwarded message: From: Richard Forno <rforno@infowarrior.org> Date: July 8, 2006 2:22:38 AM EDT To: Blaster <rforno@infowarrior.org> Cc: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> Subject: FBI plans new Net-tapping push FBI plans new Net-tapping push By Declan McCullagh http://news.com.com/FBI+plans+new+Net-tapping+push/ 2100-1028_3-6091942.html Story last modified Fri Jul 07 18:55:01 PDT 2006 The FBI has drafted sweeping legislation that would require Internet service providers to create wiretapping hubs for police surveillance and force makers of networking gear to build in backdoors for eavesdropping, CNET News.com has learned. FBI Agent Barry Smith distributed the proposal at a private meeting last Friday with industry representatives and indicated it would be introduced by Sen. Mike DeWine, an Ohio Republican, according to two sources familiar with the meeting. The draft bill would place the FBIbs Net-surveillance push on solid legal footing. At the moment, itbs ensnared in a legal challenge from universities and some technology companies that claim the Federal Communications Commissionbs broadband surveillance directives exceed what Congress has authorized. The FBI claims that expanding the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act is necessary to thwart criminals and terrorists who have turned to technologies like voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP. b The complexity and variety of communications technologies have dramatically increased in recent years, and the lawful intercept capabilities of the federal, state and local law enforcement community have been under continual stress, and in many cases have decreased or become impossible,b according to a summary accompanying the draft bill. Complicating the political outlook for the legislation is an ongoing debate over allegedly illegal surveillance by the National Security Administrationbpunctuated by several lawsuits challenging it on constitutional grounds and an unrelated proposal to force Internet service providers to record what Americans are doing online. One source, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of last Fridaybs meeting, said the FBI viewed this as a top congressional priority for 2007. Breaking the legislation down The 27-page proposed CALEA amendments seen by CNET News.com would: B7 Require any manufacturer of b routingb and b addressingb hardware to offer upgrades or other b modificationsb that are needed to support Internet wiretapping. Current law does require that of telephone switch manufacturersbbut not makers of routers and network address translation hardware like Cisco Systems and 2Wire. B7 Authorize the expansion of wiretapping requirements to b commercialb Internet services including instant messaging if the FCC deems it to be in the b public interest.b That would likely sweep in services such as in- game chats offered by Microsoftbs Xbox 360 gaming system as well. B7 Force Internet service providers to sift through their customersb communications to identify, for instance, only VoIP calls. (The language requires companies to adhere to b processing or filtering methods or procedures applied by a law enforcement agency.b ) That means police could simply ask broadband providers like AT&T, Comcast or Verizon for wiretap infobinstead of having to figure out what VoIP service was being used. B7 Eliminate the current legal requirement saying the Justice Department must publish a public b notice of the actual number of communications interceptionsb every year. That notice currently also must disclose the b maximum capacityb required to accommodate all of the legally authorized taps that government agencies will b conduct and use simultaneously.b Jim Harper, a policy analyst at the free-market Cato Institute and member of a Homeland Security advisory board, said the proposal would b have a negative impact on Internet usersb privacy.b b People expect their information to be private unless the government meets certain legal standards,b Harper said. b Right now the Department of Justice is pushing the wrong way on all this.b Neither the FBI nor DeWinebs office responded to a request for comment Friday afternoon. DeWine has relatively low approval ratings--47 percent, according to SurveyUSA.comband is enmeshed in a fierce battle with a Democratic challenger to retain his Senate seat in the November elections. DeWine is a member of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee charged with overseeing electronic privacy and antiterrorism enforcement and is a former prosecutor in Ohio. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., decided 2-1 last month to uphold the FCCbs extension of CALEA to broadband providers, and itbs not clear what will happen next with the lawsuit. Judge Harry Edwards wrote in his dissent that the majoritybs logic gave the FCC b unlimited authority to regulate every telecommunications service that might conceivably be used to assist law enforcement.b The organizations behind the lawsuit say Congress never intended CALEA to force broadband providersband networks at corporations and universitiesbto build in central surveillance hubs for the police. The list of organizations includes Sun Microsystems, Pulver.com, the American Association of Community Colleges, the Association of American Universities and the American Library Association. If the FBIbs legislation becomes law, it would derail the lawsuit because there would no longer be any question that Congress intended CALEA to apply to the Internet. You are subscribed as BobIP@Bobf.Frankston.com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/ ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen@leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]