VoIP wiretapping required, deal sealed

When we last checked in, the FCC had given the ok on wiretapping commercial VoIP providers; this decision, of course, went straight to appeals, as we'd hope and expect. We're sorry to report, however, the case which  appeared before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has officially been settled upon, and it's been decided that we'll continue to live under the provisions outlined in the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). As upheld in a 2-to-1 decision, companies like Vonage and Skype would have to open up to authorized government intrusion, the same as any landline phone provider -- private networks (like those on college campuses), however, will theoretically remain legally secure from the wiretaps. Kind of a bummer, but we're not gonna lose too much sleep over this one; we all know how easy it is to secure P2P VoIP, and really the law's only effectively leveling consumer landline VoIP with analog landline telephony and cellphone calling with regard to wiretaps, so it's almost more about upholding status quo than breaching civil liberties. So, everybody know how to create an SSH tunnel yet?

[Brian @ Jun 10th 2006 3:51PM]

I, for one (and probably the ONLY one), an quite ok with this. The moment someone is going to threaten national security, they've lost their freedoms. Now... the moment the government uses this AGAINST its stated purpose (i.e. non national security issues) then I'll be up in arms like the rest of you.

And no, I'm not a republican. I'm just aware that unbridled freedom doesn't actually exist. Besides, what do I have to fear, I'm not doing anything wrong that would attract the attention of the federal government. They've got better things do to than snoop in on what me and my roomies are planning for our friend's bachelor party.

[Theodore Wiesner @ Jun 10th 2006 4:03PM]

What the heck are you talking about. "I'm just aware that unbridled freedom doesn't actually exist." That may be true. That don't mean your support them. I was republican until el presidente started all this big brother crap. Pretty soon we will all live in the New Soviet Union.

[Scott @ Jun 10th 2006 4:20PM]

I'm not doing anything wrong that would attract the attention of the federal government.

It doesn't matter. It is a matter of principle that the Government cannot and should not be able to blanket monitor phone lines to "protect" us. Hitler said he was protecting the German People from the Jews when he shipped them off to "Work Camps." The Soviet Union was protecting its people when it sent political dissenters to Siberia. This idiotic notion that because you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be against it is ridiculous.

[Justin @ Jun 10th 2006 4:23PM]

There was a time in my life when I would have really cared about someone listening in on my conversations. Now they can waste all the time they want..

[Josh @ Jun 10th 2006 4:26PM]

The first poster misunderstands. The argument is that you wiretap in order to find out if there's a threat to national security or not...So many innocent people are effectively going to be spied on 'just in case'. Look at recent developments in London. There's no way to ensure measures will be used only against the right people (who happen, of course, to be the wrong people). Therefore, you can't be ok with this.

[Jeremy @ Jun 10th 2006 4:32PM]

Godwin's law anyone?

[n8diggity @ Jun 10th 2006 4:33PM]

Why are you "sorry to report" on this? Enabling the lawful intercept of the communications of individuals who are using telephony to further crime. Sounds horrible. CALEA really just mandates telcos to have the infrastructure to allow for court-ordered intercepts from the switch.

[DMB @ Jun 10th 2006 4:37PM]

"I'm not doing anything wrong" dude. Yeah, remember Watergate? Dems weren't doing "anything wrong" either. They were just planning a presidential campaign. If there are enough people like you, ten years from now, it will be enough to say "socialism" or "bomb" or "islam" into your phone's handset to trigger a wiretap. 15 minutes later you will be detained without charges for questioning and your home will be searched. All in the name of "national security".

[Craig @ Jun 10th 2006 4:52PM]

Is there anywhere that is private these days? I saw some insane fact somewhere that in the Uk were are spotted by about 300 CCTV cameras everyday, there are I think 2 million cameras, about 1 per 30 people.

I can see why they would want to tap some people, cos it could potentially save lives, but people are losing all their freedoms slowly.

[Leo @ Jun 10th 2006 4:52PM]

everyone keeps relating wire tapping to big brother and all sorts of nonsense. can someone please show me one instance where the government abused the privelage of wire tapping? by abuse, i mean somehow someone was damaged beyond merely having their feelings hurt...

who has been tapped and actually known it?I hear so much crap about the government becoming big brother and all sorts of nonsense. can someone please show me one instance where the government abused the privilege of wire tapping? by abuse, i mean somewhere where someone was damaged beyond merely having their feelings hurt or their privacy lost...

Its annoying to see how people are advocating that we handcuff the government in “anticipation” of them somehow creating another holocaust. Lets not forget that the government is made up of PEOPLE - Americans, not fascists and communist, or socialist for that matter.

Had it not been published, nobody would ever know that the government wire taps anyone.

[Leo @ Jun 10th 2006 4:53PM]

hmm, as i was editing my comment, i apparently didnt delete a section. sorry for the repitition.

[Blake @ Jun 10th 2006 5:12PM]

It doesn't matter wether it actually hurts someone or not, it's still wrong. What if I followed you around all day with a gun pointed at your head "just in case" you tried to kill someone?

[Richard @ Jun 10th 2006 5:20PM]

Leo:

Martin Luther King Jr. was wiretapped regularly. He kind of ended up dead. So the question becomes: who draws the line between national security and insane secular agendas? What happens when they change the rules and suddenly you ARE doing something wrong? I understand that you are pro-security, and that's fine, but once this kind of intrusion begins it's hard to go back.

[Brian @ Jun 10th 2006 5:25PM]

Woah, Blake. That's quite a foolish argument. That isn't the context in which this argument is taking place. Craig puts it
nicely:

"I can see why they would want to tap some people, cos it could potentially save lives, but people are losing all their freedoms slowly."

That's the issue: reasonable safety vs reasonable liberty. If we were SOOOO worried about safety, we wouldn't drive (#1 killer in US), have toasters, eat potatoe chips, etc. "What if" situations just don't provide insight into most issues, and thus prove themselves to be worthless in debate.

[n8diggity @ Jun 10th 2006 5:28PM]

Blake... that just doesn't make any sense. Let's try to think of a better analogy, okay? It's more like "Hey the crooks are using my company's services to sell drugs, women, and stolen goods. I'll cooperate with the authorities as far as the courts, via a court order, say I have to."

Okay that wasn't an analogy, but at least it's accurate.

[Leo @ Jun 10th 2006 5:29PM]

blake,

i think that is a weak point to make. i would hate it if the government was holding a gun to my head “just in case” i was about to commit a crime. but you would mind less if you knew i was involved in criminal activity.... the problem with this debate in general is that people relate it to things like holding a gun to someone’s head. Unlike your example, when the government wiretaps, you don’t know its happening to you. Because it is noninvasive. Can anyone count how many times they have been tapped?

What exactly is so private that people are worried the government will find out? It already has access to all of your medical records, your education records, social security information, as well as your purchasing habits. That’s basically EVERYTHING. What they don’t have access to is your “social” information. But I seriously doubt some kid working for the fbi actually gives a damn if sally cheated on joe with mike.

people haven’t been innocently thrown in jail over the misuse of wiretapping (lets not try to relate this to guantanomo please) and information has yet to be used politically. Until that happens, I endorse the policy. Because most importantly, the government has a responsibility to protect the people. While you may not be a criminal, there are people in your city, mine, that are.

[Josh @ Jun 10th 2006 5:33PM]

Using a service to sell drugs, etc, is illegal. *Talking* about, say, a terrorist attack, isn't the same as planning it - buying all the necessary equipment is. This is, in effect, the thought police - monitoring our conversations.

[Brian @ Jun 10th 2006 5:35PM]

"Martin Luther King Jr. was wiretapped regularly. He kind of ended up dead." - Richard

Are you suggesting that Dr. King died BECAUSE he was wiretapped, or simply that both events actually happened to Dr. King?

[Common sense @ Jun 10th 2006 5:37PM]

"can someone please show me one instance where the government abused the privelage of wire tapping? by abuse, i mean somehow someone was damaged beyond merely having their feelings hurt..."

Are you KIDDING?? Have you heard of the FBI, genius? Hoover? They spent years and years wiretapping everyone for absolutely zero legitimate purpose or reason.
I don't know what rock you've been under but make a basic effort to check facts - the US has a well-documented history of abusing wiretap and surviellance powers for all the wrong reasons and using EXACTLY to hurt and destroy people.

And when you can wave the flag and mutter some drivel about "national security" and "terrorists" while declaring all materials classified - to people who don't even bother to learn history much less from it, how do innocent, law-abiding civillians know or protect themselves from a govt that constantly proves it cannot tell the truth, act competently or be trusted with such powers?

Your theory of "just don't tell me and do whatever you want" is a stunning example of the herd apathy and willing ignorance that all too soon becomes "HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN!!"

Hurt your feelings? No big deal.

[Leo @ Jun 10th 2006 5:40PM]

Wow a lot of posts were made while i typed response... sorry to sound like we are attacking you blake.

Richard, i see where you are coming from. As time goes on, we continue to lose more of our liberties as far as privacy and sensorship are concerned. people in my position find security in the fact that this is america and stuff like what happened to mlk and many african americans, or the macarthy era, wont happen, but then again, that stuff wasnt too long ago...

however, i wouldnt say mlk was assassinated as a result of wiretapping, the man took a stance against the country on a national level, in public, on television and the radio. the telephone was the least of his concerns...

[Common sense @ Jun 10th 2006 5:41PM]

Leo - you factually have zero ability to declare that nobody has been imprisoned or wrongly harmed by wiretapping - you are the same "genius" who thinks "what I don't know won't hurt me" so how can you even think of making such absurd remarks?

try attending a sixth grade history class before mis-stating fact and attempting to ignore the factual, well-documented history of a govt that has long abused these powers for every imaginable means of destroying and harming it's own citizens.

[Brian @ Jun 10th 2006 5:50PM]

"This is, in effect, the thought police - monitoring our conversations." - Josh

And how many conversations take place over telephony technology every single day? They don't just randomly pick a number and hit the 'tap' button. Calls are screened based on certain, specific criteria. These criteria are based on assumptions about terrorist activities (e.g. calls coming from certain regions in the Middle East). "Thought police" doesn't work here, you can express nearly ANY thought you'd like in America (exceptions: I am going to kill the president. I am going to bomb the White House. etc.). It's the intent and action to commit terrorist attacks that the government is worried about, and well they should be.

Common Sense: you, unfortunately, failed your own test. Ok, then what are they? Enlighten us. And they should be wiretapping-specific (can't discuss EVERY possible situation, now can we). ...no, this isn't meant to be a jab, just looking for the truth.

[Leo @ Jun 10th 2006 5:55PM]

Common sense,

Don’t be foolish. the united states has hardly been as demonizing as you insinuate. Youre probably the type of person who looks to Europe, Russia, or china as shining examples of good government.

let me guess, your next response is: "it doesnt matter if america hasnt been a fraction as evil as the rest of the world, it is still that black hating, racist, tyranical, neo-fascist state run by a dyslexic former cheerleader from yale".

Every country has its dark moments in history. You ignore the incredible amount of progress that has been made since those times. Take racism for example, people think that only America deals with it, but take a look at ESPN to see how rampant racism is at the world cup for example…

[Brian @ Jun 10th 2006 6:01PM]

So... can I suggest that judgements upon what another is 'likely to say' not be made? Thus far, Leo, I TOTALLY agree with you (on this issue, at least), but such statements made by either side focuses our attention on winning & losing the flame wars, not getting to the truth of the matter.

[GhostDoggy @ Jun 10th 2006 6:08PM]

"Why are you "sorry to report" on this? Enabling the lawful intercept of the communications of individuals who are using telephony to further crime. Sounds horrible"

If a crime has yet to be committed, how do you tell a 'potential' criminal from a non-criminal? Who is watching the law enforcement to insure its not being abused for the sake of some politician?

[Brian @ Jun 10th 2006 6:15PM]

"how do you tell a 'potential' criminal from a non-criminal?" - GhostDoggy

That's the whole purpose of wiretapping: intercept criminals from 'potentially' commiting a crime.

"Who is watching the law enforcement to insure its not being abused for the sake of some politician?" - GhostDoggy

This argument can be used for absolutely every facet of law enforcement, but we certainly don't belive that there ought to be NO law enforcement. Here's my question to you: why is wiretapping different (and NOT worthy of legality) than other forms of privacy invasion (laws against incest, warrents, etc.).

[Ayrkain @ Jun 10th 2006 6:40PM]

This issue is hot because the NSA has done an end run around the protections that used to prevent them from unlimited wiretapping (FISA warrants). They aren't just tapping people who call Middle Eastern countries. They're tapping anyone within a few degrees of connection to people who have called or been called by someone outside of the U.S. The numbers are huge - one Wired article was talking about the NSA sending the FBI around 10,000 hits per month for follow-up. It's ridiculous, ineffective, and invasive.

[Josh @ Jun 10th 2006 6:41PM]

Brian -
"That's the whole purpose of wiretapping: intercept criminals from 'potentially' commiting a crime."
Which is called the thought police. Or, see Minority Report for a slightly less sophisticated. Talking about things is merely expressing thoughts to someone else on what are supposed to be private P2P connections.
Your argument about thought police not applying therefore falls down.

[Richard @ Jun 10th 2006 7:03PM]

Clearing up the thing about MLK:

Obviously it was an exaggeration, but see how quickly things get out of hand? Let's face it; even though he obviously wasn't shot by the government agents who were listening to his private conversations, many in the govenrment wanted him gone. In essence it was a matter of convenience for the people who opposed his stance on equality to rid themselves of the other side of the argument.

This type of process is one of the ugliest things that can happen in a technologically advanced society and many authors (you guys have made a literary reference or two) have written about the kind of sinister leaders who would actually like to own and control the masses. Even the Bible warns against government deprivatization and totalitarianism... whether you value the Bible or not is of no concern, but do you gadget-loving readers really think that a "shopper chip" is an impossible scenario?

The fact is, this is America, damnit. Something is happening that I oppose and I'm going to stand up and say no.

[Richard @ Jun 10th 2006 7:06PM]

"Here's my question to you: why is wiretapping different (and NOT worthy of legality) than other forms of privacy invasion (laws against incest, warrents, etc.)."

The obvious difference is this: the people always get what they want, one way or another.

[Richard @ Jun 10th 2006 7:11PM]

""Thought police" doesn't work here, you can express nearly ANY thought you'd like in America (exceptions: I am going to kill the president. I am going to bomb the White House. etc.). It's the intent and action to commit terrorist attacks that the government is worried about, and well they should be."

Im turning this guy in, he's obviously up to something.

[Sojourn @ Jun 10th 2006 7:48PM]

Will something like Google Talk be subject to this type of tapping, as well?

[freakon @ Jun 10th 2006 9:00PM]

I understand the govenments position. After 9/11, they got blamed for not having enough security. Now people dont want to go through a metal detector at the airport. The goverment can't please everyone.

[Bryan @ Jun 10th 2006 9:04PM]

privacy, privacy, privacy...the ever elusive goal.

i'm sure the PGP/GPG guy has a solution that avoids the ruling because it's so underground but that just makes it even more well known with the NSA.

people should just be smart if they are planning to throw a frat party or something. i'm a libertarian but i'm for not getting bomb by anything. if the government needs authority in reasonable circumstances to wiretap on any medium at any time, reasonably, that's may just save us more lives. if it's reasonable.

[Justin @ Jun 10th 2006 9:09PM]

I think all these comments here should be private from government viewing. We are freely giving away our liberty by posting. It is all documented, filed, and stored for later use against us.......by the way, Martin Luther King and the rest of the entire human race has a 100% mortality rate.

[Justin @ Jun 10th 2006 9:13PM]

Once a thought leaves your head it is no longer private.
A secret is only between you and yourself.

[Rev. Otto Nimitz @ Jun 10th 2006 9:19PM]

It's nice to see that we can all have a pseudo-intellectual debate about this issue (read sarcasm). How about we keep in the vein of Engadget and discuss how we can legally use technology to stay one step ahead of this aggregious invasion into our privacy? Zfone and a good SIP client? Is there hardware or software out there that is relatively cheap or free to continue using POTS?

[Emceay @ Jun 10th 2006 9:59PM]

People, calm down. You can all fire up classic doom and use the chat function relatively undisturbed. You could use your DS and eventually the Wii for all your underhanded dealings. The gov't is slick, but the people are too numerous to pin down.

[Shunnabunich @ Jun 10th 2006 11:34PM]

So I guess some of you guys didn't see "Good Night, and Good Luck". :P

[He called it... @ Jun 11th 2006 1:05AM]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

[chip @ Jun 11th 2006 2:17AM]

I don't think I have a problem with extending the ability to wiretap - if a warrant is issued and there is probable cause. You know, like in the 4th amendment.

The problem arises when there is illegal warrantless wiretapping. I'm on the list and I don't like it. Oh, how do I know I'm on the list? The same way that you know you aren't. But it's a secret, and I can't tell you, do to national security concerns.

[Richard @ Jun 11th 2006 2:18AM]

"I think all these comments here should be private from government viewing. We are freely giving away our liberty by posting. It is all documented, filed, and stored for later use against us......."

Yeah, because I know everytime I pick up the phone to chat with granny I expect it to be logged and read by strangers. I mix up my personal telephone service with a huge public web blog all the time!


"by the way, Martin Luther King and the rest of the entire human race has a 100% mortality rate."

No?! Wow, thanks, I was under the impression that his life was cut short in a brutal assassination! Or did you mean to say that the entire human race has a "100% death by assassination after their peaceful struggles for equality are compromised by government wiretapping" rate?

[DMB @ Jun 11th 2006 4:25AM]

Will you people please read US constitution, fourth ammendment to be exact? No wiretapping without a warrant! I'm OK with this stuff being implemented. I'm NOT OK with governments ability to wiretap ANYONE for any reason and for no reason at all.

[TLC @ Jun 11th 2006 8:02AM]

The above link is for a FAQ sheet on wiretapping. Under what is at stake, legal expert Peter Swire writes:

"4. Threatens the constitutional system of checks and balances. The current Administration is claiming executive power far beyond our historical understanding. Here are three recent examples: it can wiretap without a warrant in the United States, contrary to FISA (the NSA program); it can torture, contrary to international law and the recent statute championed by Senator McCain; and it can hold a U.S. citizen in detention forever, with no judicial review, simply because the President says the citizen is an “enemy combatant.” It is hard to see any limits to the President’s claims – the entire PATRIOT Act has become essentially irrelevant because the President claims he would have the powers without the law. And these extremely broad powers would go on for years to come, so long as there are terrorists in the world who oppose the United States."

There's no reason to place your head in the sand and declare that this has no bearing on you personally because you are not a criminal. A nation led by criminal thought implementing criminal policies and criminal actions internationally ...you cannot claim your hands are clean. Where is the sense of responsibility that comes with your citizenship? What purpose of trumpeting "democracy" among the peoples of the rest of the globe if you take no responsibility for your own?

[HJ @ Jun 11th 2006 10:32AM]

"The FBI relied on its vague authority to investigate "subversives" to spy on King and SCLC; its vague authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping and microphonic surveillance to tap and bug him; its secrecy to conduct covert operations against him. The campaign began with his rise to leadership and grew more vicious as he reached the height of his power; it continued even after his assassination in 1968."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lawless_State

Hoover's people would then call Mrs. King and play back the tapes of his calls with "other women" in the hopes to destroy him personally.

I don't support illegal wiretapping, nor do I support 'big brother' activities.

I support the legal ability to wiretap via a warrant/legal cause. (e.g. Mafia, drug trafficking, etc)

This ruling puts VoIP in the same class as all our other communications. Nothing wrong with that.

For those all up in arms about this because it 'opens the floodgates'--do you really think the 'secret element of the government' would wait for a law saying they could treat it like other communications for them to do it illegally?

Let's move on to the real issue someplace else. Abuse of power, using power as a means to be 'big brother'-- it is the root of your frustration in general.

[Sojourn @ Jun 11th 2006 1:16PM]

Aside from the debate as to whether or not all of this is constitutionally, legally, or morally right, is the actual implementation of it. So I'm still wondering . . . what is actually going to be tapped? Skype was mentioned -- does that mean that all like programs will also be tapped, or just their usage through phone devices? Like I had asked before, will something like Google Talk be tapped? How is the judgment being made as to what gets tapped and what doesn't?

[guysmiley @ Jun 11th 2006 1:35PM]

>>ten years from now, it will be enough to say "socialism" or "bomb" or "islam" into your phone's handset to trigger a wiretap.

ten years from now? Try - 30 years ago!
honestly - why are we suddenly shocked about Bush OKing wiretaps without warrants - let alone allowing wiretaps for VoIP? This has been going on for years.

Project Echelon run by the NSA has been monitoring virtually all communications with voice / pattern recognition for decades. We are talking phone and email - and by now we can assume that chat, VoIP is no problem for this system. If they were doing this back then, i doubt Engadgets suggestion of using SSH is any sort of barrier to Echelon. It is a cross border system run in conjunction with U.S. allies (UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand specifically). It was all setup as a cold-war 'security' measure.

A few years ago, the European Union tabled a report stating that the U.S. was using the system to tap non-U.S. businesses to gain details to give information to private U.S. companies so that they would gain an edge in international business dealings.

This was reported on by the tv news show "60 Minutes" back in 2000. Heres the transcript if your interested:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543347/posts

So all of this sudden shock is ridiculous and naieve - this violation of our rights has been going on for years.

Oh - and to those who say that 911 is proof we need more of this crap: it is a fact that the problem with 911 was not a matter of having too little info; they had all the info but not enough resources to process or make sense of the TONS of data they had collected using our existing systems. So this need to suddenly pass laws to gain more information at the expense of our privacy is proven to be complete BULL based on that fact alone. If these incompetant government agencies were serious and smart about what they do they would request and assign more resources to examining information that they obtain using there existing capabilities.

[Dave B @ Aug 25th 2006 2:41PM]

Face the facts. You're all wrong and your opinions are irrelevant. Government is an institution designed to select a solution somewhere in the middle of the plain established by multiple arguments, all of which consider themselves correct. Not one single person is ever completely satisfied by it, that's how it's supposed to be.

This is the world we live in, NOT 1984. When the government truly oversteps its' bounds, action will be taken to remove some of its' power. This point has not been reached; that is why no serious action has been made. Relax, everything is alright.

[Dave @ Aug 25th 2006 6:40PM]

"Here's my question to you: why is wiretapping different (and NOT worthy of legality) than other forms of privacy invasion (laws against incest, warrents, etc.)."

Wire tapping is is on a different plain than what you compare it to here "incest, warrants, ect." Where as with warrants, a crime has been committed and there is enough evidence to substantiate a warrant either for arrest or search and seizure, within the limits of the warrant. As in the case of incest, again a crime has been committed, and again there has been evidence to have the presumption of guilt for this crime.

Wiretapping can be compared, even though not the best comparison, to Precog in "Minority Report". Yes I know it is a movie and the technology does not exist. It is the concept of the Precog however that is somewhat comparable. With Precog a subject was arrested in the foresight of a crime to be committed by the said subject. The flaw is that no crime was ever committed and there is no possibility to know if the crime would have been committed. Of course the movie gave way to, that Precog was a fact, then proved to be wrong.

In many views, people feel the same about wire tapping. That they are being found guilty, for a crime that has not been committed; which contradicts the fundamental basis of our judicial system, the presumption of innocence, "Innocent until proven guilty by a court of law". This seems to be more a psychological affect more than any real concern about the government listening to their private conversation.

Whether wire tapping is is good or bad the fact remains that it is real. As it has been stated many times before they are not wire tapping every citizen. Wire tapping can be a good preventative measure for crime as long as there is no abuse. Unfortunately one may never know if one will have the desire to abuse this power or not. To presume that one will is to presume guilt over innocence. Given our government history though I can understand why people think that way.

Here is the good and the bad about wire taps in America. The good, every knows. The bad, everyone knows. Anyone stupid enough to trigger off a wiretap, may not be that much of a threat anyways.

[Florian @ Sep 3rd 2006 1:05PM]

As a late comment I'd like to add that Skype was NOT mentioned in the NY Times article, just Comcast and Vonage. Who says that the ruling affects Skype?