F.C.C mandate forces"backdoors" for broadband ISP's : http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/30/wiretap.errors.ap/index.html This could be even worse than I thought: http://beta.news.com.com/2061-10804_3-5884130.html?tag=pulse.tb And it could require an email/fax campaign to the Judiciary Committee's to get the F.C.C's mandate repealed/retracted. Pete
<And it could require an email/fax campaign to the Judiciary Committee's to get the F.C.C's mandate repealed/retracted. Pete> Just set it up and lets begin....................
Um - I don't think they'd appreciate that here (notwithstanding the fact that screwing with people's rights as far as preventing them from getting the software they want and should be able to have to communicate securely/anonymously in an effective manner should send the computer "Security" and "Privacy" alarms right off the chart). If an admin wants to okay it, that's fine - I'd be more than happy to kick it off right here and now. In the meantime, I sent either emails or web-contact forms to the E.F.F, E.P.I.C, A.C.L.U and C.D.T for possible inclusion in an "Action Item" alert. My thinking here is that both our Reps and all members of both "Judiciary" committees should be told in no un-certain terms that the chains should be tightly jerked back on the F.C.C. Even if they can't do that, the publicity and pressure couldn't hurt (even judges know what goes on - when it comes to court - if an issue makes enough noise beforehand. Pete
< should send the computer "Security" and "Privacy" alarms right off the chart). > Of course you are right. Yes, I see your points.......well, I have already sent nearly 300 e mails since my earlier post (got to just love mass e mailers, LOL) Anyone who has been around for a while always knew that it would come to this eventually.
Since the F.C.C site is nice enough to provide the email addresses of its' Chairman and Commissioners' ( http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html ), I sent all of them the following email: Subject: Appying C.A.L.E.A to the Internet is ILLEGAL " It is totally beyond me why you have bowed down to the F.B.I.'s demand for your recent "regulation". In the first place, it's illegal - C.A.L.E.A was specifically worded to prevent this. Can you not read? Secondly, by this action on your part, it will - if implemented - throw huge costs upon colleges and I.S.P.'s for compliance. You deserve to be sued for this - and you will be. Thirdly, you seem to have no concern whatsoever for the fact that your latest regulation - if implemented - will both chill free speech and quash innovation on new software. What the hell are you thinking over there? In any case, I have written my Congressmen and Representatives, asking them to find a way to either rescind or repeal your latest "regulation" - or to find ways to cut your funding so that you can't enforce it. Should this not be sufficient, I will write every single member of both Judiciary Committees. You need to stop being government toadies and start using your brain, because your latest "regulation" is an insult both to the American population and our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Signed, "
It seems to me that it couldn't hurt to let my Congressmen and Reps know how I feel about this issue - so this morning, I wrote the following letter and FAX'ed it to all of them (their contact info can be found at http://www.theorator.com/senate.html and http://www.theorator.com/government/house.html in case you want to contact yours, too, by phone, FAX, email or "contact form" ): "Can you rein in the F.C.C? The F.C.C's recent decision and regulations have expanded the reach of C.A.L.E.A into the Internet arena. Aside from the fact that this was definitely determined previously not to be within the purview of C.A.L.E.A (explicitly exempting "information services" like broadband) and should have been an illegal regulation to start with, colleges and I.S.P's are now ready to start suing the government because of the recent F.C.C regulation, which will - if allowed to take effect - cause both those and other organizations massively increased costs of operation to comply. As your Constituent, I ask you to find out what you can do to repeal/rescind the latest F.C.C mandate - or even to penalize the F.C.C through budget cuts, which would hamper their ability to prosecute individuals or organizations that don't comply. This is a "lose/lose" situation for all citizens - because the costs involved are going to be directly passed on to us (and you, for that matter) in the form of higher Internet provider costs and higher educational costs for those attempting college educations. Not to mention the fact that MY tax dollars are going to be wasted when the F.C.C has to start fighting the lawsuits. Likewise, I am totally opposed to the Justice Dept.s attempted pressuring of I.S.P's to keep extensive records on everyone's Internet usage - for the same reason. (See this article for details: http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5748649.html ). It is time for this privacy-and-freedom-destroying hysteria on the part of the government to stop - and I look forward to your help in getting it stopped. Thank you. Signed, " Feel free to use that one if you like - or write your own - if you're in disagreement with the new F.C.C "regulation" . Pete
It seems they really didn't value my input on that: Your message To: Michael Copps Subject: Applying C.A.L.E.A to the Internet is ILLEGAL Sent: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:03:41 -0500 was deleted without being read on Thu, 3 Nov 2005 00:20:40 -0500 Your message To: Kathleen Abernathy Subject: Applying C.A.L.E.A to the Internet is ILLEGAL Sent: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:03:07 -0500 was deleted without being read on Thu, 3 Nov 2005 00:10:58 -0500 Imagine that. Pete
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_11.php#004198 I won't quote all of it, but I can't pass up this paragraph: "The FCC has distorted an already dubious law designed for telephone services in order to reach Internet providers and private networks," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien. "They have plainly overreached their authority in requiring internet providers to design systems that make surveillance of the public easier and we are confident that the courts will agree. But in the meantime the FCC deadline has not been moved and no one knows what CALEA compliance means on the Internet. The Commission refused to say, the FBI has been playing coy, and the rest of us just don't know. The result is a nonsensical deadline that forces companies to begin compliance without knowing what is required of them, or whether CALEA even applies to them, all happening in the shadow of a strong claim that the FCC does not even have authority to do this at all. The FCC needs to call a timeout until it knows what it wants, and seriously reconsider whether it has the authority to demand it."
Thanks for the info, Spy1! The only good thing I can think of why they deleted your email without reading is.......they are getting waaay more than they counted on.........Hopin' that's a fact! Cheers! Marja Sent my own......we'll see......
You're quite welcome, Marja. Even though this decision is going to fought out in the courts, letting the individual F.C.C members know that you think they really over-stepped their bounds might help them develop some character. They need to know that their decisions are being scrutinized - and they need to be accountable to someone. Pete
(Lead item on this page - http://cdt.org/ ): "Court Ruling Threatens Civil Liberties, Technology Innovation CALEA Ruling [PDF]: http://www.cdt.org/wiretap/20060609calea.pdf June 09, 2006
http://www.securityfocus.com/print/columnists/406 "Retain or restrain access logs?" Another good editorial by Mark Rasch concerning mandatory data-retention by ISP's. Pete
Court backs government broadband wiretap access http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060609/ts_nm/telecoms_wiretaps_court_dc_8
