(no subject)

[sorrowmonkey]

I read a monthly computer security newsletter (he uses a Blog now, but still sends monthly summaries) by noted computer security author Bruce Schneier. One of the notes in this month's edition, which I have only skimmed so far, was a big winner for me.

I got into a heated argument a couple of years ago with a Special Agent at the FBI, who my uncle works with, with over government eavesdropping. I claimed that there was spy equipment installed at MCI Worldcom while I was there for government monitoring, and he did everything except tell me I was crazy. I think the FBI has to deal with a lot of "The Truth is Out There" conspiracy-nuts, and he was steadfast in his belief that it was illegal, and thus, impossible. That he thought so is really a positive reflection of his integrity; I still like him, even if he was completely wrong.

I am vindicated today.

Here (http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/att_klein_wired.pdf) is an article documenting a similar installation at AT&T to the one I remember from MCI. If it is fabricated, you have to admit it is well done. My only complaint is the author's targeting of the Bush administration; the MCI Worldcom installation was completed in the Clinton-era, and this whole thing has more to do with the NSA civil servants than the elected politicians.

Anyone who things they really understand the legality of all of this stuff is deluding themselves. The body of legislation by Congress than involves the telecommunications industry is scary, and I doubt anyone really understands it all; much of it is contradictory. It is very possible that none of this is illegal because of specially-crafted loopholes in legislation. Did you know that the U.S. Military gets to dictate what order phones are restored in an emergency, and that they have special authority to demand services from phone companies?

Comments

[darthluna.livejournal.com]

I got to work with the Feds back when I worked with SNET. We have to comply with court ordered umm, orders.
We provided taps, info etc in crimenl cases and stings. Only with a faxed ordered a lawyer on call and exactly everything in the warrent and not a detail less or more.
We could only respond in a very small time time frame and to the exact people written on the warrent.
Having done it, phoone info with warrents is so carefully controlled monitered tracked and documented, I felt my privacy would never be affected unless there was enough proof of my wrong doing for a judge to issue a warrent. Which works for me. It can be an information tool.

Searched without warrents may or may not be unwarrented or legal. They feel illegal/wrong to me. It doesn't mean they are. But for my reading of the law and experiance with how carefully and dilegently that information is normally guarded, this really feels wrong.
It feels like searching my house in secrect under the thoery that if I'm not a criminal, I'll be fine.

[nrawling.livejournal.com]

That feeling is that as custodians of information that it should be kept private. Unfortunately, there would be nothing illegal in the phone company publishing people's phone records on-line, as long as they didn't use social security numbers in the process.

Anything passed by the House and Senate and signed by the President is law, no matter how poorly-conceived, immoral, unethical, or unconstitutional it may be. If Congress passed a law in 1978 authorizing the military and other executive agencies access to the telephone networks, it doesn't matter too much how we personally interpret the unreasonable search and seizure clause.

The phone reinstatement is under the control of

[osgkar.livejournal.com]

FEMA which is a cluster of paramilitary groups that can make unilateral regulations (not laws) which are enforceable by military force and complete lack of due process. It has been mismanaged before but now that it under the wing of homeland security it will be all good. Right?