Fridays are always good for shock headlines...
Nothing new here, but just an FYI -- I figured some of you might want to be aware new pressures being exerted in the CALEA arena. Via C|Net. [snip] 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. [snip] More: http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6091942.html - ferg p.s. When did the FBI start drafting legislation? ;-) -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Fergie wrote:
Nothing new here, but just an FYI -- I figured some of you might want to be aware new pressures being exerted in the CALEA arena.
Via C|Net.
[snip]
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.
[snip]
It be far from me to suggest this isn't done as some kind of usual conspiracy G-Man US thing, but as already discussed, these facilities make sense to ISP's, and in my opinion, also to law enforcement: Whether it is to avoid the inconvinience or potential damages to the ISP, to make actionable intelligence viable quickly or to abuse the legality of wiretaps, these make sense. Potential abuse means a lot of things, and it certainly dictates prudence and vigilence by citizens and the Gov. That said, I think this may really be a win-win for both the LEO's and the ISP's. Than again, if an ISP is approached once every 20 years, I hope the FBI will be covering the costs. Someone always says they do? Gadi.
- ferg
p.s. When did the FBI start drafting legislation? ;-)
-- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
On July 8, 2006 at 03:04 fergdawg@netzero.net (Fergie) wrote:
[snip]
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.
I say: Double-plus ungood! I guess they can mandate whatever in hell they want in the name of catching bad guys, anything. It should remind us why those "obnoxious" folks from the ACLU et al really need to have a more balanced influence. -b P.S. In a somewhat unrelated but amusing chapter from the "Clear Thinking in Jurisprudence" dept: The NY State Supreme Court last week tossed gay marriage as being compelled by the state's constitution. One of the reasonings shot down was the assertion that there is any problem with discrimination because the result forbids both straights and gays from marrying same-sex, thus the result is non-discriminatory. I'll admit there may be arguments to be made on both sides but...WHEW!
I apologize, my note (appended below) was intended for another list which was also discussing this article. I hope no one was seriously injured. -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* On July 10, 2006 at 13:54 bzs@WORLD.STD.COM (Barry Shein) wrote:
On July 8, 2006 at 03:04 fergdawg@netzero.net (Fergie) wrote:
[snip]
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.
I say: Double-plus ungood!
I guess they can mandate whatever in hell they want in the name of catching bad guys, anything.
It should remind us why those "obnoxious" folks from the ACLU et al really need to have a more balanced influence.
-b
P.S. In a somewhat unrelated but amusing chapter from the "Clear Thinking in Jurisprudence" dept:
The NY State Supreme Court last week tossed gay marriage as being compelled by the state's constitution.
One of the reasonings shot down was the assertion that there is any problem with discrimination because the result forbids both straights and gays from marrying same-sex, thus the result is non-discriminatory.
I'll admit there may be arguments to be made on both sides but...WHEW!
On Jul 10, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
The NY State Supreme Court last week tossed gay marriage as being compelled by the state's constitution.
One of the reasonings shot down was the assertion that there is any problem with discrimination because the result forbids both straights and gays from marrying same-sex, thus the result is non- discriminatory.
I'll admit there may be arguments to be made on both sides but...WHEW!
The counter-argument to that is that it DOES unfairly restrict, based on gender, the question of "who can marry a female" or "who can marry a male". But that topic veers widely off-topic, and any future discussion of it should probably find a new home. Cheers, D -- Derek J. Balling Manager of Systems Administration Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 0406 - Computer Center 217 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 W: (845) 437-7231 C: (845) 249-9731
participants (4)
-
Barry Shein -
Derek J. Balling -
Fergie -
Gadi Evron