Fbi Adds To Wiretap Wish List: Your Cable And Dsl

[muchspl2]

This is just the first segment of the story, you can read the whole thing here:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5172948.html?tag=nefd_top


FBI adds to wiretap wish list

A far-reaching proposal from the FBI, made public Friday, would require all broadband Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.

The FBI's request to the Federal Communications Commission aims to give police ready access to any form of Internet-based communications. If approved as drafted, the proposal could dramatically expand the scope of the agency's wiretap powers, raise costs for cable broadband companies and complicate Internet product development.

Legal experts said the 85-page filing includes language that could be interpreted as forcing companies to build back doors into everything from instant messaging and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) programs to Microsoft's Xbox Live game service. The introduction of new services that did not support a back door for police would be outlawed, and companies would be given 15 months to make sure that existing services comply.

"The importance and the urgency of this task cannot be overstated," says the proposal, which is also backed by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration. "The ability of federal, state and local law enforcement to carry out critical electronic surveillance is being compromised today."

Because the eavesdropping scheme has the support of the Bush administration, the FCC is expected to take it very seriously. Last month, FCC Chairman Michael Powell stressed that "law enforcement access to IP-enabled communications is essential" and that police must have "access to communications infrastructure they need to protect our nation." 



I won't be voting for bush :/

[3RA1N1AC]

ugh. bunch of goose-steppers... <_<

Patriot Act, my ass. if people these days acted like our original patriots did, the FBI would label &#39;em as subversive and then wiretap &#39;em. ;)

[Rat Faced]

The Land of the Free(ish)

This, however, effects everyone.

I cant see there being 2 different clients in use depending upon where on the planet you live.... <_<

[hobbes]

I got this FBI guy sleeping on my couch, I think that is a bit much.

[3RA1N1AC]

i got one in my shower. i dunno how he expects me to bathe without touching my "naughty" parts, but he always yells at me & threatens to send me to guantanamo bay if i touch &#39;em. you&#39;d think they would find something more important for him to do, but i guess somebody decided that this is a top priority.

[muchspl2]

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

and this will just a make it easier for hackers to gain entry

[h1]

<_< Our beautiful USA PATRIOT act at work...

Unfortunately, most of the uneducated sheep that qualify as voters do not understand this. As long as Bush pulls Osama out of a hole two weeks before elections, he&#39;ll get in.

[J'Pol]

In the UK Production Orders and Search Warrants can be made which forces ISPs to provide all data on what users have been doing. Basically if it&#39;s available to the ISP it is available to law enforcement. They can do it to your bank account and phone, so why not your interweb access. It is no more intrusive.

I very much doubt that this would not also be available realtime. It is entirely feasible and as long as a judge agrees it then no problem. I believe though that, for this type of thing it would be The Secretary of State in England and Wales, The Justice Minister in Scotland.

I am surprised that Law Enforcement do not have these types of powers in the US. They will be passed, under the argument that they are essential in the fight against terrorism. It is a great time for Law Enforcement to get new powers.

Oh did you know that the location of your mobile phone can be traced really accurately, to within a few feet. See it connects to masts and as such you only need two to let you know where it is. Three is much more accurate though. Works in the same way as GSP. You don&#39;t even need to be using it, just have it switched on and they can find it is seconds.

[h1]

But is already in place.

How many of you have heard of the Tempest project?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by haxor41789@15 March 2004 - 01:41
But is already in place.

How many of you have heard of the Tempest project?
Not me, could you elucidate please ?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by haxor41789@14 March 2004 - 20:41
But is already in place.

How many of you have heard of the Tempest project?
.......and what happened to Carnivore?

[muchspl2]

Carnivore/echelon is real :eek:

[Alex H]

Originally posted by haxor41789@15 March 2004 - 00:08
<_< Our beautiful USA PATRIOT act at work...

Unfortunately, most of the uneducated sheep that qualify as voters do not understand this. As long as Bush pulls Osama out of a hole two weeks before elections, he&#39;ll get in.
Would thinking that the US has had him all along and Bush is planning to do just that make me untrusting?

[Evil Gemini]

I hope it doesnt come into Australia.

Even now, i feel paranoid just to do certain searches on google because i think the S.W.A.T guys will comes bursting through my window :fear2:

I can just imagine it.

I do a google on chlorine or someshit, i see a smoke bomb then i pass out and wake up in some interigation room :helpsmile:

[james_bond_rulez]

Originally posted by Busyman+14 March 2004 - 18:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 14 March 2004 - 18:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-haxor41789@14 March 2004 - 20:41
But is already in place.

How many of you have heard of the Tempest project?
.......and what happened to Carnivore? [/b][/quote]
u work for the god damn phone company

u tell us <_<

[Busyman]

It&#39;s a computer program not telco wiring. <_<

[james_bond_rulez]

it&#39;s all the same shit

i have friends who work at phone companies and they evesdrops on conversations all the time, it&#39;s so easy to do.

find any router boxes and with the right equipment i can listen to any phone calls.

now the computer program will only make the process easier and quicker, but the principles are really the same

[Busyman]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@15 March 2004 - 10:17
it&#39;s all the same shit

i have friends who work at phone companies and they evesdrops on conversations all the time, it&#39;s so easy to do.

find any router boxes and with the right equipment i can listen to any phone calls.

now the computer program will only make the process easier and quicker, but the principles are really the same
Well all it takes for me persoanlly too eavesdrop is too plug in their phone. Hell I have a buttset.

But remotely jumping into a telco convo is entirely different.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Busyman+15 March 2004 - 13:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 15 March 2004 - 13:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-james_bond_rulez@15 March 2004 - 10:17
it&#39;s all the same shit

i have friends who work at phone companies and they evesdrops on conversations all the time, it&#39;s so easy to do.

find any router boxes and with the right equipment i can listen to any phone calls.

now the computer program will only make the process easier and quicker, but the principles are really the same
Well all it takes for me persoanlly too eavesdrop is too plug in their phone. Hell I have a buttset.

But remotely jumping into a telco convo is entirely different. [/b][/quote]
Ah.

Technical expertise&#33;

Very nice. ;)

Would that you could enlighten us, sir-at your leisure, of course. :P

[vidcc]

I&#39;m sure the intention is honourable however it is too open to abuse and violation of peoples right to privacy.
I await the day when someone goes to court as a witness in a major case and their character is called into question citing internet usage. In rape cases it&#39;s common for the defense to question the moral standing of the victim bacause they had x amount of boyfriends....how long before internet habits are included?
i do agree that given hard indications of a risk certain people should (given proper judicial authority) be observed, however it does seem to be yet another rung on the ladder to big brother.
Already it&#39;s possible for a company to check up on your criminal past (i don&#39;t have one) and many agencies hold full details of your credit history....will employers be able to check to see what you get upto online in the not too distant future?
The current proposal is supposed to be for law enforcement but call me paranoid if you wish i can&#39;t see it stopping there. One could argue that if you live a normal law abiding life you have nothing to worry about.
If the FBI wanted to open and read every letter sent via the postal service there would be outrage...to me this is no different
With every plus there is often a sinister minus.

[DWells55]

Oh, great, this is just wonderful&#33; Now we can put all those horrible pirates away in jail who pirate things because they do&#39;t have the money topay for rediculously overpriced crap. Who don&#39;t have the money to buy a &#036;50 video game that only has single player and can be beaten in 5 hours.

--End sarcasm--

Privacy is starting to fade away much to quickly in this country...

[shn]

stuff like this has been in existance already. They just did not tell you.

Carnivore :)

[leftism]

Originally posted by shn
stuff like this has been in existance already. They just did not tell you.

Carnivore&nbsp;

Carnivore is kids stuff compared to Echelon.Thats been going on much longer too. :(

[shn]

Nonetheless.

The U.S. goverment had a big part in the creation of the internet for military purposes.

One could expect that they basically 0wn all within their own territory. :)

[leftism]

Originally posted by shn
One could expect that they basically 0wn all within their own territory.

Indeed, but with Echeleon they 0wn the globe. This is why I&#39;m wondering what all the fuss is about. Its been going on in a global sense since the end of WW2. Its just not the internet either, it&#39;s every form of electronic communication.

Theres an interesting EU report on it here (http://www.europarl.eu.int/tempcom/echelon/ pdf/prechelon_en.pdf) for those who haven&#39;t already heard about it.


13.2. Conclusions

The existence of a global system for intercepting private and commercial communications (the ECHELON interception system)

That a system for intercepting communications exists, operating by means of cooperation proportionate to their capabilities among the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, is no longer in doubt. It has been established that this system is operated on the basis of the UK/USA Agreement. That its name is in fact ECHELON seems likely in view of the evidence, but this is a relatively minor detail. What is important is that its purpose is to intercept private and commercial communications, and not military communications.

:huh: :o :angry:

[shn]

Originally posted by leftism+15 March 2004 - 15:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 15 March 2004 - 15:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-shn
One could expect that they basically 0wn all within their own territory.

Indeed, but with Echeleon they 0wn the globe. This is why I&#39;m wondering what all the fuss is about. Its been going on in a global sense since the end of WW2. Its just not the internet either, it&#39;s every form of electronic communication.

Theres an interesting EU report on it here (http://www.europarl.eu.int/tempcom/echelon/ pdf/prechelon_en.pdf) for those who haven&#39;t already heard about it.


13.2. Conclusions

The existence of a global system for intercepting private and commercial communications (the ECHELON interception system)

That a system for intercepting communications exists, operating by means of cooperation proportionate to their capabilities among the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, is no longer in doubt. It has been established that this system is operated on the basis of the UK/USA Agreement. That its name is in fact ECHELON seems likely in view of the evidence, but this is a relatively minor detail. What is important is that its purpose is to intercept private and commercial communications, and not military communications.

:huh: :o :angry:[/b][/quote]
Indeed. Good find.

To be honest. For the basic stuff or should I say basic people like me and you, their not going to probably need echelon.

And in fact, in lot of day to day cases of "private and commercial communications" crimes or incidents, Carnivore implemented on an isp network and a couple of jaz drives can cause to be much more efficient.

Echeleon is for Osama..............and they still can&#39;t find him. :)

[Alex H]

A question for the Americans: I&#39;ve heard that law enforcement authorities can&#39;t open your mail without a warrant. As email is considered a legally valid form of communication, (ie. you can inform someone in writing by sending them an email) does that mean that the FBI or someone else has the right to open your (e)mail without a warrant?

[shn]

Originally posted by Alex H@17 March 2004 - 21:46
A question for the Americans: I&#39;ve heard that law enforcement authorities can&#39;t open your mail without a warrant. As email is considered a legally valid form of communication, (ie. you can inform someone in writing by sending them an email) does that mean that the FBI or someone else has the right to open your (e)mail without a warrant?
I think they technically need a court order to present to the isp of the person&#39;s email they want to intercept or read.

The best solution is to just encrypt it anyway. However, Americans can not send any type of encrypted data beyond certain U.S. borders due to encryption export laws. :)

[kAb]

Originally posted by Alex H@17 March 2004 - 20:46
A question for the Americans: I&#39;ve heard that law enforcement authorities can&#39;t open your mail without a warrant. As email is considered a legally valid form of communication, (ie. you can inform someone in writing by sending them an email) does that mean that the FBI or someone else has the right to open your (e)mail without a warrant?
No, but there is a system called &#39;carnivore&#39; that I believe scans for key words of suspected criminals or something to that effect.

[shn]

Originally posted by kAb+17 March 2004 - 22:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kAb &#064; 17 March 2004 - 22:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@17 March 2004 - 20:46
A question for the Americans: I&#39;ve heard that law enforcement authorities can&#39;t open your mail without a warrant. As email is considered a legally valid form of communication, (ie. you can inform someone in writing by sending them an email) does that mean that the FBI or someone else has the right to open your (e)mail without a warrant?
No, but there is a system called &#39;carnivore&#39; that I believe scans for key words of suspected criminals or something to that effect.[/b][/quote]
Carnivore does not do that.

What you are talking about is Echeleon. :)

[h1]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+14 March 2004 - 20:43--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 14 March 2004 - 20:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-haxor41789@15 March 2004 - 01:41
But is already in place.

How many of you have heard of the Tempest project?
Not me, could you elucidate please ? [/b][/quote]
The Tempest project (http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/tempest.html)

[muchspl2]

Originally posted by shn+17 March 2004 - 23:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shn @ 17 March 2004 - 23:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@17 March 2004 - 21:46
A question for the Americans: I&#39;ve heard that law enforcement authorities can&#39;t open your mail without a warrant. As email is considered a legally valid form of communication, (ie. you can inform someone in writing by sending them an email) does that mean that the FBI or someone else has the right to open your (e)mail without a warrant?
I think they technically need a court order to present to the isp of the person&#39;s email they want to intercept or read.

The best solution is to just encrypt it anyway. However, Americans can not send any type of encrypted data beyond certain U.S. borders due to encryption export laws. :) [/b][/quote]
thats not true, with the patriot act, they can get warrants/search/DETAIN everything if you&#39;re a terrorist
with no judge are court order

[h1]

And then they can use that secret evidence to try you in a secret court with a secret verdict and secretly punish you.

Shortly after 9/11, a Pakistani friend of mine got arrested. Nobody, including his family has heard news of him in 2 1/2 years.

[leftism]

Originally posted by muchspl2
thats not true, with the patriot act, they can get warrants/search/DETAIN everything if you&#39;re a terrorist with no judge are court order

ahh yes the "patriot" act. What a misnomer&#33; The RIP act in the UK is just as bad ("black box" recorders on all ISP networks) but at least it&#39;s aptly named. ;)

[shn]

Originally posted by muchspl2+17 March 2004 - 23:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (muchspl2 &#064; 17 March 2004 - 23:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by shn@17 March 2004 - 23:04
<!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@17 March 2004 - 21:46
A question for the Americans: I&#39;ve heard that law enforcement authorities can&#39;t open your mail without a warrant. As email is considered a legally valid form of communication, (ie. you can inform someone in writing by sending them an email) does that mean that the FBI or someone else has the right to open your (e)mail without a warrant?
I think they technically need a court order to present to the isp of the person&#39;s email they want to intercept or read.

The best solution is to just encrypt it anyway. However, Americans can not send any type of encrypted data beyond certain U.S. borders due to encryption export laws. :)
thats not true, with the patriot act, they can get warrants/search/DETAIN everything if you&#39;re a terrorist
with no judge are court order[/b][/quote]
I somewhat agree. But the patriot act is still getting critism and once again, for basic people like you they will not need the patriot act and I highly doubt they would risk abusing the patriot act for a typical American.

It does not take long to get a court order, especially at the federal level. Once that is attained you are pretty much screwed.

If you consider yourself as dangerous or as hideous as a terrorist then maybe you will get the luxury of the patriot act.

Until then, I would not loose any sleep over it. :)

[leftism]

Originally posted by shn
I somewhat agree. But the patriot act is still getting critism and once again, for basic people like you they will not need the patriot act and I highly doubt they would risk abusing the patriot act for a typical American.

It&#39;s already happening. The guy who runs the "Raise the Fist" website is being prosecuted under the Patriot act for posting "terrorist material" on his website.

In this case "terrorist material" means a small text file similar in content to the Jolly Rogers Cookbook. :blink:

[muchspl2]

its stuff like this that fall&#39;s under most people&#39;s radar
they are slowly taking away more and more freedoms
what about this FCC bill coming up, if passed the government can shut you down with excessive fines

[h1]

Originally posted by leftism
In this case "terrorist material" means a small text file similar in content to the Jolly Rogers Cookbook. :blink:
:lol: Things like JRC and The Poor Man&#39;s James Bond are terrorism.

But the fourth is gone already, why don&#39;t we hit up the first? <_<

[shn]

I suppose that&#39;s why it&#39;s always good to just stay out the limelight then.

Nowadays if you want attention it&#39;s not too hard to get it. :)

[BigBoo]

i thought they already watched us. they read our emails

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by leftism+18 March 2004 - 06:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 18 March 2004 - 06:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-muchspl2
thats not true, with the patriot act, they can get warrants/search/DETAIN everything if you&#39;re a terrorist with no judge are court order

ahh yes the "patriot" act. What a misnomer&#33; The RIP act in the UK is just as bad ("black box" recorders on all ISP networks) but at least it&#39;s aptly named. ;)[/b][/quote]
RIPA, RIPSA in Scotland, is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. It put controls and regulations in place to control activities which were already being carried out. It made things more difficult for them. They now have to get authority to carry out things that they previously did as they chose, surveillance on suspects being an obvious example. Some things which were previously regulated elsewhere are now covered by RIPA and RIPSA.

It curtails the indiscriminate actions of the Police. I don&#39;t see the point you wish to make.

[leftism]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol
They now have to get authority to carry out things that they previously did as they chose, surveillance on suspects being an obvious example.

If this were true, i.e they collected evidence without any authority at all, then the evidence wouldn&#39;t be admissible in court.

As I understand it, before the RIP act came into force the police needed a judges signature to carry out the kind of data interception that the act refers to.

The act now allows interception of data without judicial review and without a warrant.

The act forces ISP&#39;s to retain more data of your internet usage for a longer period of time and also allows many more Gvt agencies access to details of your internet and telephone usage. Hence the phrase "snoopers charter".

In cases where encryption is used the defendant has to prove that they cannot provide the key to unlock the data. This turns the whole concept of our legal system upside down. You have to prove your innocence (you cant produce the key), they do not need to prove you&#39;re guilty (you can produce the key).

If an innocent person cannot "prove" they&#39;ve forgotten the key they will go to prison, whilst people who are being charged with serious internet crime will be happy to accept the 2 year sentence for not providing their key, instead of a much longer sentence for the original offence.

It&#39;s also bad for Britains online economy. A BCC report estimated that it would cost ISP&#39;s £46 billion in the 1st 5 years of the act&#39;s implementation to install the so called "black box recorders".

The man who invented the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee, said it would have been thrown out of the US "in a second".

Taken all these points into account, and I could have mentioned many more, I don&#39;t understand how you can claim this curtails the polices activities or how it can be seen as a good piece of legislation.

[J'Pol]

With regard to your reply to the part which you quoted, that is just wrong. This is not a debating point, you are simply incorrect. Surveillance was carried out without any authority prior to RIPA and RIPSA. The evidence was routinely accepted.

With regard to interception of communications.

1. They previously used IOCA

2. Interception of communications needs authority from the Secretary of State, in Scotland I think it is the Justice Minister.

Judges did not authorize interception of communications. They may have signed Search Warrants and Production Orders, that is for historic information and still stands. Retention of records is not interception of communications.

Like I said authorities are now more difficult to get and are more highly regulated. That is why the Act was brought in, to make the UK more compliant with ECHR and to make the Police more answerable and auditable. Previously things like surveillance could be carried out on the whim of the investigators. Now all authorities are auditable by the OSC (Office of Surveillance Commissioners), which is made up of Judges.

The reason I say that it is more difficult is that it is true. The points you quote with regard to interception of communications and provision of historical records are simply incorrect.

Can you point me towards the provision of encryption keys and the 2 year sentence thing. I would be interested in reading that, don&#39;t take this the wrong way but I would rather interpret it myself than rely on your understanding. I cannot see how it is ECHR compliant.

[leftism]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>With regard to your reply to the part which you quoted, that is just wrong. This is not a debating point, you are simply incorrect. Surveillance was carried out without any authority prior to RIPA and RIPSA. The evidence was routinely accepted.[/b]

I would be absolutely amazed to find out this was true, unless it exclusively relates to "human surveillance" i.e police following you or watching your house. I suspect this to be the case since you separated "surveillance" and "interception of communication".


Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>With regard to interception of communications.

1. They previously used IOCA

2. Interception of communications needs authority from the Secretary of State, in Scotland I think it is the Justice Minister.[/b]

1. The IOCA already regulated the interception of data on public networks but not on private networks.

2. If you read the smallprint carefully you will see that the interception of communications does not always need authority from the Secretary of State or Justice Minister.

In the section titled "Lawful interception without a interception warrant" you&#39;ll find that

Originally posted by RIPA

(3) Conduct consisting in the interception of a communication is authorised by this section if-

(a) it is conduct by or on behalf of a person who provides a postal service or a telecommunications service; and

(B) it takes place for purposes connected with the provision or operation of that service or with the enforcement, in relation to that service, of any enactment relating to the use of postal services or telecommunications services.


This means that your ISP ("person who provides a telecommunications service") can intercept your communications "for purposes connected with the enforcement of any enactment relating to the use of postal services or telecommunications services.".

There is also another part of the same section that allows interception without a warrant if both sending and receiving parties consent to it. If you look at your contract with your ISP you&#39;ll see that you have already consented and if the receiving party lives in Europe or the US they will have consented to interception in the contract with their ISP as well.

Also any data that is retained by your ISP can be accessed without a court order. I think this still counts as interception. Just because the data is not being collected in "real time" doesn&#39;t mean it hasn&#39;t been intercepted when someone other than yourself gets access to it.

<!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@
Can you point me towards the provision of encryption keys and the 2 year sentence thing. I would be interested in reading that, don&#39;t take this the wrong way but I would rather interpret it myself than rely on your understanding. I cannot see how it is ECHR compliant.[/quote]

<!--QuoteBegin-RIPA

(1) A person to whom a section 49 notice has been given is guilty of an offence if he knowingly fails, in accordance with the notice, to make the disclosure required by virtue of the giving of the notice.

(2) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it.

(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if-

(a) sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
(B) the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
[/quote]

If you read that very very carefully it equates to this.

To show that an individual cannot produce the demanded key requires two things.

1. The prosecution must not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you cannot disclose the key

AND (&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;)

2. you have to be able to provide "sufficient evidence" that you cannot.

Therefore even if the prosecution cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, you still have to provide that "sufficient evidence". :blink:

How you provide "sufficient evidence" in relation to your memory is a mystery to me... the way I see it, it&#39;s impossible. So if anyone does forget their key and doesn&#39;t have a "Dream Team" of lawyers they&#39;re getting sent down for 2 years.

[J'Pol]

I have no intention of debating the relative value of several pieces of complex legislation with someone who thinks that a mixture of Google, cutting and pasting and some ill-informed conjecture equates to understanding.

I have studied these things at length, I have discussed them with Senior Council, Procurator&#39;s Fiscal and Crown Office. I have read learned papers interpreting their meaning. I am aware of how they are treated within the various legal systems throughout the UK.

Thanks but no thanks. Frankly I have neither the time nor the inclination. To anyone who deigns to read this, please ignore Leftism&#39;s ramblings. That is all they are, at best ill-informed conjecture.

RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) was introduced into the UK as a response to the requirements of the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) and it meets those. RIPA controls and regulates the activities of Law Enforcement more thoroughly than they have ever before been regulated. This is a fact.

I expect a reply consisting of a mixture of sophistry and "Common Sense" understanding of the Law. Like I said earlier, not interested enjoy yourself.

[J'Pol]

Free Lesson

In order to understand the Law in the UK it is not enough to simply read the text of the Act. The following are the minimum steps.

1. Read the relevant Act

2. Read the Hansard notes, which explain the intention of the legislators.

3. Read the interpretations. Plain English does not work, as an example "cash" means different things in different Acts. Arrest means a different thing in Scotland to England. Detain means different things in different acts.

4. Read any rulings given by Judges in relation to the section you are dealing with. These form part of the legal process ad can supersede the original meaning

5. Read any rulings by appeal courts, including the Law Lords and the court in Strasbourg.

6. Understand that some Acts are subordinate to others. The ECHR is sacrosanct (just now).

The one thing you should not do is read the text of an Act and have a common sense, isolated view of what the words mean in plain English. It does not work that way. Other systems may, but ours does not.

[leftism]

Let me know when you wish to get back to the specifics of the RIP act. :rolleyes:

[bujub22]

Originally posted by muchspl2@14 March 2004 - 16:07
This is just the first segment of the story, you can read the whole thing here:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5172948.html?tag=nefd_top


FBI adds to wiretap wish list

A far-reaching proposal from the FBI, made public Friday, would require all broadband Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.

The FBI&#39;s request to the Federal Communications Commission aims to give police ready access to any form of Internet-based communications. If approved as drafted, the proposal could dramatically expand the scope of the agency&#39;s wiretap powers, raise costs for cable broadband companies and complicate Internet product development.

Legal experts said the 85-page filing includes language that could be interpreted as forcing companies to build back doors into everything from instant messaging and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) programs to Microsoft&#39;s Xbox Live game service. The introduction of new services that did not support a back door for police would be outlawed, and companies would be given 15 months to make sure that existing services comply.

"The importance and the urgency of this task cannot be overstated," says the proposal, which is also backed by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration. "The ability of federal, state and local law enforcement to carry out critical electronic surveillance is being compromised today."

Because the eavesdropping scheme has the support of the Bush administration, the FCC is expected to take it very seriously. Last month, FCC Chairman Michael Powell stressed that "law enforcement access to IP-enabled communications is essential" and that police must have "access to communications infrastructure they need to protect our nation."



I won&#39;t be voting for bush :/
http://bloodymetal.blig.ig.com.br/imagens/fodase2.jpg

them bastards :angry: :angry:

[cpt_azad]

Originally posted by haxor41789@14 March 2004 - 16:08
<_< Our beautiful USA PATRIOT act at work...

Unfortunately, most of the uneducated sheep that qualify as voters do not understand this. As long as Bush pulls Osama out of a hole two weeks before elections, he&#39;ll get in.
perfectly worded :) . funny thing, probability of that happening (maybe not 2 weeks, more or less) is about 99.9% with a 0.01% chance of error :) .