4 ms·

Yes they do, mainly because it’s the law. That it’s a misguided law is open for debate, but I don’t believe there is any state in the world that doesn’t monito

by mritun 4y ago

Yes they do, mainly because it’s the law. That it’s a misguided law is open for debate, but I don’t believe there is any state in the world that doesn’t monitor and control tele-communications (internet is regulated as tele-communications WW).

mdp2021 4y ago
It is the details of the law that count here. "Rights of investigation" and "capillary monitoring" are poles.
quietbritishjim 4y ago
The level of surprise does seem overblown. This bit stuck out to me: > ... access to this data is so accessible remotely that physically visiting an internet provider’s premises is no longer required for government agencies. They were expecting government agents to have to physically visit the ISP's offices? Were they perhaps going to get their data on a floppy disk?
- Lealen 4y ago
  They weren't asking for floppy disks, they were sending their people to connect directly to infrastructure. One of examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
  - quietbritishjim 4y ago
    Ah ok that does make a bit more sense.
- yardstick 4y ago
  Just because data can be made accessible remotely doesn’t mean it should be. Airgapped systems are also still a thing. On-site access would also make it harder to abuse the data at scale. I’m not surprised that the data is accessed remotely. But I can also understand scenarios where it makes sense to require physical access, and not because of long gone floppy disk drives or other ancient hardware.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    On the other hand, if your purpose is automated analysis of data, you will probably create an automated update of the records - a direct connection.
  - nix23 4y ago
    Data diods are also a thing (physical oneway traffic) but that so many are unaware of it is mindblowing. https://owlcyberdefense.com/learn-about-data-diodes/ https://owlcyberdefense.com/learn-about-data-diodes/
- stevewatson301 4y ago
  The model where law enforcement officers have to visit ISP facilities reduces the duration and scope of surveillance. Throw in a process where you need to get court approval into the mix, and this provides some level of oversight into the surveillance machinery. (Though abuses are certainly possible with this model, see [1]). [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/foriegn-intelligence-surveillance-court-rubber-stamps-mass-surveillance-under https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/foriegn-intelligence-s...
adrian_b 4y ago
Yet there was a time, not long ago, when many countries had written in their constitutions, among the fundamental rights of their citizens, the rights of secrecy for both their written correspondence and their telephone conversations. Such rights were included even in the constitutions of many communist countries, despite the fact that there it was a routine activity for the secret police to open all suspect private correspondence and listen to many telephone calls. Nonetheless, they had to be careful to not get caught, because the official version was that their activities were illegal and even anti-constitutional. Unfortunately, now almost everywhere such rights have been weakened or completely eliminated, without any good justification and without the opposition that such changes deserved.
- hulitu 4y ago
  > Unfortunately, now almost everywhere such rights have been weakened or completely eliminated, without any good justification and without the opposition that such changes deserved. What do you mean "without any good justification" ? It is for your own good to protect you from terrorists (the bad ones specifically), hate speech (anything which is against the official narative) and child porn. /s Why would change deserve opposition when it is for your own good and the change is in better [1] ? /s [1] See Monty Python's Life of Brian - Ex-lepper scene.
0x445442 4y ago
I’ve wondered about this for a while now with all the social media banning. The FCC requires one to have a license to broadcast over the airwaves and from what I understand these regulations stem from a limited number of frequencies. But I wonder if the FCC would have been created if that physical constraint did not exist. Was the FCC more about the constrained physics or controlled information?
- triceratops 4y ago
  Constrained physics. The FCC doesn't regulate content on cable TV. Technologically, there's no reason cable radio couldn't have existed.
  - 0x445442 4y ago
    But I was talking about airwaves, and they do regulate what's on those. It's not just physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission_fines_of_The_Howard_Stern_Show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commiss...
    - triceratops 4y ago
      I have no idea what you're trying to say. Yes it's not "just physics" that causes the FCC to regulate the content of broadcasts on radio and TV airwaves. I thought that was obvious. Even if the FCC chose not to regulate broadcast programming, they or some other body, would still need to enforce rights to frequencies. That's their raison d'etre. Content policing is an added function, which the law has found valid in the past precisely because frequencies are limited. I can't see such public interest legal opinions being newly formed today.

by mritun 4y ago

mdp2021 4y ago

It is the details of the law that count here. "Rights of investigation" and "capillary monitoring" are poles.

quietbritishjim 4y ago

The level of surprise does seem overblown. This bit stuck out to me: > ... access to this data is so accessible remotely that physically visiting an internet provider’s premises is no longer required for government agencies. They were expecting government agents to have to physically visit the ISP's offices? Were they perhaps going to get their data on a floppy disk?

Lealen 4y ago
They weren't asking for floppy disks, they were sending their people to connect directly to infrastructure. One of examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
- quietbritishjim 4y ago
  Ah ok that does make a bit more sense.
yardstick 4y ago
Just because data can be made accessible remotely doesn’t mean it should be. Airgapped systems are also still a thing. On-site access would also make it harder to abuse the data at scale. I’m not surprised that the data is accessed remotely. But I can also understand scenarios where it makes sense to require physical access, and not because of long gone floppy disk drives or other ancient hardware.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  On the other hand, if your purpose is automated analysis of data, you will probably create an automated update of the records - a direct connection.
- nix23 4y ago
  Data diods are also a thing (physical oneway traffic) but that so many are unaware of it is mindblowing. https://owlcyberdefense.com/learn-about-data-diodes/ https://owlcyberdefense.com/learn-about-data-diodes/
stevewatson301 4y ago
The model where law enforcement officers have to visit ISP facilities reduces the duration and scope of surveillance. Throw in a process where you need to get court approval into the mix, and this provides some level of oversight into the surveillance machinery. (Though abuses are certainly possible with this model, see [1]). [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/foriegn-intelligence-surveillance-court-rubber-stamps-mass-surveillance-under https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/foriegn-intelligence-s...

adrian_b 4y ago

Yet there was a time, not long ago, when many countries had written in their constitutions, among the fundamental rights of their citizens, the rights of secrecy for both their written correspondence and their telephone conversations. Such rights were included even in the constitutions of many communist countries, despite the fact that there it was a routine activity for the secret police to open all suspect private correspondence and listen to many telephone calls. Nonetheless, they had to be careful to not get caught, because the official version was that their activities were illegal and even anti-constitutional. Unfortunately, now almost everywhere such rights have been weakened or completely eliminated, without any good justification and without the opposition that such changes deserved.

hulitu 4y ago
> Unfortunately, now almost everywhere such rights have been weakened or completely eliminated, without any good justification and without the opposition that such changes deserved. What do you mean "without any good justification" ? It is for your own good to protect you from terrorists (the bad ones specifically), hate speech (anything which is against the official narative) and child porn. /s Why would change deserve opposition when it is for your own good and the change is in better [1] ? /s [1] See Monty Python's Life of Brian - Ex-lepper scene.

0x445442 4y ago

I’ve wondered about this for a while now with all the social media banning. The FCC requires one to have a license to broadcast over the airwaves and from what I understand these regulations stem from a limited number of frequencies. But I wonder if the FCC would have been created if that physical constraint did not exist. Was the FCC more about the constrained physics or controlled information?

triceratops 4y ago
Constrained physics. The FCC doesn't regulate content on cable TV. Technologically, there's no reason cable radio couldn't have existed.
- 0x445442 4y ago
  But I was talking about airwaves, and they do regulate what's on those. It's not just physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission_fines_of_The_Howard_Stern_Show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commiss...
  - triceratops 4y ago
    I have no idea what you're trying to say. Yes it's not "just physics" that causes the FCC to regulate the content of broadcasts on radio and TV airwaves. I thought that was obvious. Even if the FCC chose not to regulate broadcast programming, they or some other body, would still need to enforce rights to frequencies. That's their raison d'etre. Content policing is an added function, which the law has found valid in the past precisely because frequencies are limited. I can't see such public interest legal opinions being newly formed today.