FBI Wants To Make Sure They Can Tap VoIP Calls
from the regulations...-regulations... dept
The folks over at the FBI are getting worried that VoIP might be left regulation free, meaning that any VoIP player wouldn’t have to build in special hooks so that the FBI can easily tap such phone calls. They’ve asked the FCC to delay any rulings on VoIP until the issue of how to tap the calls is addressed. <sarcasm> In other news, the FBI now wants to stop people from talking to each other in person, unless they all agree to wear a microphone that will beam back all conversations to a big central database </sarcasm>. Why does the FBI receive the automatic right to listen in on these things? If the “bad” people want to communicate, they’re going to figure out how.
Comments on “FBI Wants To Make Sure They Can Tap VoIP Calls”
No Subject Given
But why should the FBI make it any easier for these “bad people” to communicate in secrecy?
Well, not quite.
Most criminals are not very sophisticated — they fail to take basic security precautions.
If the FBI is able to arrest people like the guy who kidnapped the 11-year-old girl sooner, how many people will complain?
Re: In other news...
In other news, the FBI has just been granted approval to install GPS tracking devices in all automobiles sold after January 1, 2005. This will allow the FBI to keep track of your location in case you do anything bad.
Re: Re: In other news...
Double plus ungood
Wait!!! What about carnivore?
This is IP traffic, how is it different from sniffing any other IP stream????
Chris.
P.S. Sorry about the blank post…
Re: Wait!!! What about carnivore?
What’s next, they’re gonna force everyone who drives a car to display a unique identifying number on the rear and sometimes on the front of the vehicle? For “our own protection”!? It’s an outrage!
So, what's new
You of course know that 911 service also financed the phone industries caller ID, and you have already paid over $2B to have the capability to do fast tracing of calls added by the phone companies (that did not produce any products for the companies, they just picked rate payers pockets to do it).
I imagine they are in a blind panic to figure this one out, and doubt they will. At least this is about FBI taping stuff and not about taxing it to death.
Re: So, what's new
Jim,
We the users of cellular phones PAID the additional fees for e911 … It is not a standard part of my bill and is clearly stated as an additional fee to subsidize 911 tracing of cellular phones.
Same thing with the $ 3.95 service fee you get to pay for the privilege of caller id in order to know who is calling you prior to taking the call.
911 didn’t pay for a damn thing …
Re: So, what's new
… furthermore,
we have been paying incremental fees since @ least the late 90’s to pay for the new ” number portability ” that so many phone companies don’t want to give in to. Last I read, over 2 billion in fees have been collected since they were authorized to add this additional fee to your & my phone bill.
Fallacy 101
There should be a mandatory undergraduate course to purge this kind of fallacious argument.
“Bad guys are going to do it anyway.”
Yes, they are, and when they finally get busted, the cops are going to find a large stash of circumvention measures, the paraphenalia of not getting caught.
Ever seen the Sopranos standing around in the pouring rain talking on public payphones? The whole point is to make the process of “getting away with it” more conspicuous.
That forces the crooks to specialize, and it makes it far more obvious to the law enforcement people who they are really up against, even if they can’t get a conviction.
Sure, why don’t we cancel the FBI wiretap capability altogether so poor Tony Soprano can make his calls from the comfort of his living room?