FBI eyes P2P, webmail for wire tapping

 

Lacks capability to exercise authority.

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has asked lawmakers to help it close the gap between its ability and authority to intercept web-based telecommunications services.

The FBI's general counsel Valerie Caproni last week singled out webmail, social networking sites and peer-to-peer as those services it cannot lawfully intercept under what the agency terms its "Going Dark" problem.

Making her case to a Judiciary Committee on terrorism and homeland security last week, Caproni cited a major drug importation investigation in 2009 in which of a former law enforcement officer "went to great lengths" to use such services to avoid wire taps.

The last major upgrade to US intercept laws occurred in 1994, prior to the rise of P2P telephony services such as Skype. The 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) covered internet telephony services interconnected with the public switched telephone network, but not web communications tools.

"As a result, although the government may obtain a court order authorising the collection of certain communications, it often serves that order on a provider who does not have an obligation under CALEA to be prepared to execute it," Caproni told the committee.

Caproni said the FBI had the "legal authority" to tap such services but not the "practical" means to force service providers to comply.

Australian authorities had intended to address this particular concern via the Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill, which was supported by the Australian Federal Police Association but opposed by Australia's telecommunications carriers.

The bill would have required carriers to advise the Attorney General of new services thirty days prior to launch if such services could impact their ability to comply with an intercept order.

The bill was dropped from the Government's immediate agenda prior to the 2010 election campaign.

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


FBI eyes P2P, webmail for wire tapping
"Ace wrote: Heh, nice one @HC. Forum Nitpick sounds a lot better than Forum Bully. yeah that's an interesting way of looking at it, you say I'm the "forum bully" but that couldn't be further ..."
By HubertCumberdale
 
 
 
Comments: 19
Corsair
Feb 21, 2011 10:19 AM
Gotta love western democracy. You can't do anything without being watched.
Maxxi2
Feb 21, 2011 11:10 AM
As opposed to Middle Eastern regimes Corsair , where you can't do anything without being watched, arrested, carried off, jailed, tortured and then shot.

Oh, and someone is still watching the whole process at the same time...
laticslad
Feb 21, 2011 11:32 AM
Lets just take a step back here, all sorts of deals are going on in skype, facebook, etc. If its OK for the authorities to wire tap a phone line for voice, why cant they do the same thing for data?

As long as they get a warrant and the judicial review is going on then I cant see what the problem is
Maxxi2
Feb 21, 2011 12:51 PM
Agreed @laticslad, it is both entirely normal and a required capability in democracies for policing organisations to be able to intercept communications in any format when required.

It would be an anarchy ridden chaos pretty quickly if we did not have law enforcement with the ability to pursue criminals and audit/track activites related to suspected criminal actions.

It has been a standard aspect of law enforcement in our democracies since Day One. As we are human (still...) there are and will be glitches, but the alternatives are far, far worse than life in the USA, Australia, Sweden, NZ, UK or Canada et al.

Law enforcement has had these abilities for decades and we are still doing pretty good and have far more freedoms here and in the countries mentioned than elsewhere...
HubertCumberdale
Feb 21, 2011 3:47 PM
Maxxi2 wrote:
Law enforcement has had these abilities for decades and we are still doing pretty good

Law enforcement hasn't had these abilities for decades and we are still doing pretty good.

Ezy2Confuze
Feb 22, 2011 10:42 AM
Remember ASIO has already requested that the NBN be built with the ability to be "tapped", which I am fine with, up to a point. The problem I have, is that the US time and time again, has abused privelages such as these to further their own agenda or to "protect" US business interests - a questionable term at least with all the cash being paid to pollies over there or hidden deals etc - and we've already seen through Wikileaks what they are like for spying on friends and foe alike.
Maxxi2
Feb 22, 2011 4:45 PM
Mr HubertCumberdale: Law enforcement has indeed had communications interception abilities for decades and we are truly still doing pretty good.

Attuned to the communications formats and technologies of the day, enforcement agencies have had the legal basis, access and capabilities to intercept, listen into, copy, tape, witness and use communications from citizens as required and authorised by the relevant courts or authorities.

There have been ball-ups and stuff-ups, misuse and abuse, mistakes and wrong takes. It has never been and will continue to never be perfect, and also the police are not entirely made up of angels halycons of virtue.

But we are still doing OK and we have a pretty free and open society, a thriving and resilient democracy and manage to keep the tsunami of human failings, crime and evil pretty well at bay and.

As does the USA, as does Canada, as does NZ, as do the Scandanavian countries, as does the UK, as does Germany, France, (most of Western Europe actually...) et al.

Perfect? Nope.
Could it be better? Yep.
Do law enforcement activities assist in the control of crime? Sure does.
Could it be better? Sure could.
Would a reduction in surveillance assist? Nope, definitely nope.

In general cannot see where your statement comes from HC, it is well enough documented that law enforcement has had various levels of communications interception and monitoring since, well, centuries...

Started with simply intercepting letters mate, and has progressed from there.





Edited by Maxxi2: 23/2/2011 09:36:42 AM
HubertCumberdale
Feb 22, 2011 5:16 PM
Maxxi2 wrote:
Mr HubertCumberdale: Law enforcementlaw has indeed had communications interception abilities for decades and we are truly still doing pretty good.

blah blah blah

Started with simply intercepting letters mate, and has progressed from there.



Right over your head.
Maxxi2
Feb 22, 2011 6:40 PM
@HubertCumberdale: Thanks for the tip, appreciated. I will watch out for and strive to avoid the inevitable droppings...

In the meantime the "blah blah blah" was & is simply irrevocably correct.

HubertCumberdale
Feb 22, 2011 8:48 PM
Maxxi2 wrote:
@HubertCumberdale: Thanks for the tip, appreciated. I will watch out for and strive to avoid the inevitable droppings...

In the meantime the "blah blah blah" was & is simply irrevocably correct.


No need to cry about it, do you really think it is necessary to quote a whole post when replying? Seems you are still completely oblivious too... I'll wait for the cogs to turn a bit more then we can continue if you like.
developerchris
Feb 22, 2011 10:36 PM
@HubertCumberdale: I am not sure what country you are in so it may not count where you are. but in Australia we have had interception laws ever since there was something to intercept. I can only comment on the last 30 years from personal experience, but the TIA (telecommunications interception act) was enacted in 1979 Coincidentally the year I started with Telecom. The Crimes act was enacted in 1914, while I am unsure about interception of mail, the crimes act gave police the legal freedom to commit acts which otherwise might have been seen as crimes. in other words 'within reason' police were able to commit crimes to catch the bad guys. I am sure that involved listening devices opening mail and whatever else they chose. So Yeah decades just about sums it up.
under the current TIA the feds can intercept skype and anything else. there is no need for new laws. Oh except to make Mandatory interception the rule. which is the purpose of the current ammendments. after that it will be mandatory for non law enforcement agencies to intercept your electronic communications no matter what form they take. Its the basis of the Mandatory filter.
Ace
Feb 22, 2011 10:57 PM
Don't worry @devchris, @HC believes he knows everything, and peppering the forum with a bit of insalt will somehow help his forum cred. When he turns 25, he'll realise it's all a bit pointless.

In the mean time, I will continue to wear my tin-foil hat.
HubertCumberdale
Feb 22, 2011 11:33 PM
developerchris wrote:
@HubertCumberdale: I am not sure what country you are in so it may not count where you are. but in Australia we have had interception laws ever blah blah etc.

Oh look another hapless poster that just didn't get it and feels the need to create a wonderful and verbose response that has absolutely no relevance to what was originally written, is it possible for anyone and I mean ANYONE to be able to comprehend what I said? No clearly not apparently...

Ace wrote:
@HC believes he knows everything,

I wouldn't say everything, but I clearly know more than you no need to be bitter about it.

Ace wrote:
In the mean time, I will continue to wear my tin-foil hat.

yeah we seem to have a lot like you here, honestly thought you would fit better in over on another forum but whatever.



I'll continue waiting for the cogs to turn, I'll give it a week at the very least. You cant say I'm not a reasonable person.
Maxxi2
Feb 23, 2011 8:44 AM
@HC: As our cogs will take some time to turn sufficently and fully understand the gist of your message, please be so kind and expand on your thoughts?

We would like to get it, and it looks like we are simply not yet getting it.

Life is not easy as a mere mortal mate, please be more than reasonable and assist us.

Thanks...

Edited by Maxxi2: 23/2/2011 09:37:26 AM
HubertCumberdale
Feb 23, 2011 3:17 PM
Maxxi2 wrote:
@HC: As our cogs will take some time to turn sufficently and fully understand the gist of your message, please be so kind and expand on your thoughts?

We would like to get it, and it looks like we are simply not yet getting it.

Life is not easy as a mere mortal mate, please be more than reasonable and assist us.

Thanks...

Edited by Maxxi2: 23/2/2011 09:37:26 AM

Yes, you are totally right, it was a mistake for me to assume everyone was on the same intellectual level here, note I'm not trying to be insulting I'm genuinely trying to be sincere here, I'm just used thinking the best of people not the worst.

More to the point, I'm not debating what powers law enforcement have in this or any other country with other mediums and opinions on what or how much power they should have is irrelevant to me in this topic. The point, the ONLY point I was making with my comment was that law enforcement currently does NOT have this power for P2P or webmail if they HAD it already they wouldn't be asking for it. Didn't anyone read the article or even just the headline? It is right there "FBI eyes P2P, webmail for wire tapping" cant miss it. Or this:

Quote:
The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has asked lawmakers to help it close the gap between its ability and authority to intercept web-based telecommunications services.

The FBI's general counsel Valerie Caproni last week singled out webmail, social networking sites and peer-to-peer as those services it cannot lawfully intercept under what the agency terms its "Going Dark" problem.

Ace
Feb 23, 2011 5:39 PM
@HC said "Law enforcement hasn't had these abilities for decades and we are still doing pretty good."

@HC said "The point, the ONLY point I was making with my comment was that law enforcement currently does NOT have this power for P2P or webmail if they HAD it already they wouldn't be asking for it. "

The ability, or the power? Hmmm, are you backtracking on what you said? Or maybe didn't understand the subtle difference between "ability" and "power"?

It's very clear what Valerie was referring to. They have the ABILITY to intercept webmail etc (and as most of us know, have been able to do so for quite some time), but not the legal POWER. hence the FBIs request to "close the gap".

Sorry to bore everyone by explaining the bleeding obvious, but not everyHCone is quite with the program here.
HubertCumberdale
Feb 24, 2011 3:18 PM
Ace wrote:
The ability, or the power? Hmmm, are you backtracking on what you said? Or maybe didn't understand the subtle difference between "ability" and "power"?

Not backtracking at all...

Ace wrote:

It's very clear what Valerie was referring to.

Was pretty clear was I was referring too as well but once again I keep forgetting people just seem to gloss over things here without actually comprehending anything. The only reason why I used the word "abilities" was because I simply copy/pasted that sentence and changed the word "has" to "hasn't" But you knew that already didn't you Ace? Something else you want to pedantically nitpick? Like I said earlier I thought you would fit better in over on another forum...
Ace
Feb 24, 2011 11:09 PM
Heh, nice one @HC. Forum Nitpick sounds a lot better than Forum Bully.
HubertCumberdale
Feb 24, 2011 11:42 PM
Ace wrote:
Heh, nice one @HC. Forum Nitpick sounds a lot better than Forum Bully.

yeah that's an interesting way of looking at it, you say I'm the "forum bully" but that couldn't be further from the truth, it's not exactly my fault people here are incapable of debating in a smart and frank manner... of course when you are losing it is simple enough to throw these labels around, you could call me a troll too if you like but that doesn’t change facts "boo hoo HC was right and I was wrong now I'm gonna go into every thread and rather than debate the threads topic I'll cry some more about it boo hoo, I want my mummy!"

btw you know that tin foil hat of yours I really don’t think it's thick enough, time to add a few more layers.


Edited by HubertCumberdale: 25/2/2011 12:01:42 AM
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australian miners send drones to work
In-depth: Unmanned aerial vehicles in the resources sector.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 511

Vote