Fbi Adds To Wiretap Wish List: Your Cable And Dsl

[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".

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.

[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_3-5172...l?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 :/

them bastards

[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 .