6 ms·

Allow me to add my $0.02 to this discussion. I've implemented CALEA type features for a major ISP. I did it because it was the law that we implement it. I'm

by Nrsolis 14y ago

Allow me to add my $0.02 to this discussion. I've implemented CALEA type features for a major ISP. I did it because it was the law that we implement it. I'm generally in favor of following the law. Mind you, CALEA doesn't do anything that couldn't already be done with the law. And you get more protections via CALEA than you'd get otherwise. For one thing, there are warrants that are delivered to a judge for review which then find their way to a company attorney. Only then does any interception take place. I can live with the checks and balances that are in place under this system. I sometimes find it incredible that people are so quick to embrace lawlessness and then expect their duly-elected governments to follow those laws to the letter. Believe me, if enough people actually cared and went to their legislature, things would change. Of course, most people agree that we should pursue criminals using all legal means. BTW, I'm in agreement that this system could be abused. Of course, that's always been the case. Laws are just words on paper unless there are people who will enforce them. If those folks look the other way, well, you're right back where you started. And before you go into privacy rights, let me suggest to you that the millions of people posting their personal information on FB and getting their email via Google provide a pretty substantial counterweight to your position.

svachalek 14y ago
I honestly don't see how voluntary self-disclosure on FB or anywhere else has anything to do with privacy rights.
- Nrsolis 14y ago
  It matters if you're trying to gain popular support for your political positions. The average joe doesn't see why wiretapping has anything to do with them. They don't understand or care. And those people vote. Sometimes.
mcantelon 14y ago
Yup. People are ignorant of history and therefore of the need for privacy rights. Thankfully encryption doesn't yet depend on the public not being ignorant and politicans not being corrupt.
abecedarius 14y ago
But the question was not why the ISP would conform to CALEA instead of breaking it; it was why you as a programmer would take on the job of providing a snooping system, instead of some other job that does not need a lot of explanation about why it's actually not really so bad. There are reasonable answers to this, but I think it's a fair question. (I don't agree that 'we' should pursue criminals (or suspects) using all legal means.)
- chiquitabacana 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil
  - kalms 14y ago
    Exactly. What people wouldn't do in the name of bureaucracy.
- DanBC 14y ago
  I'd rather have good people involved in "evil" systems, to at least try to balance them, than have evil people involved in "evil" systems where there's nothing but external agencies to provide balance. And whatever the system is I'd much rather have competent people working on it.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    Couldn't disagree more. Every good person should avoid working with evil systems. We should also excommunicate any people who do work with evil from our circle as best we can so they can't grow as well in their profession.
    - npsimons 14y ago
      We should also excommunicate any people who do work with evil from our circle as best we can so they can't grow as well in their profession. And by doing that, you ensure they will continue to "work with evil systems" because they will never be able to change jobs.
jrogers65 14y ago
I once quit a job because one of my employer's servers became infected with some malware, spread it to client's computers and the employer refused to notify and apologise to said clients. I sincerely hope that you grow up and take responsibility for your own actions. They are the only things we truly own. I do not believe that you are evil for what you did but I most certainly believe that you are ignorant in a very dangerous way.
- Nrsolis 14y ago
  I think maybe you missed the point that I actually agree with the mechanisms that are in place. I don't have any disagreements when the framework is used as it is designed to be used. Namely, within the context of due process and rule of law. More importantly: it's somewhat presumptuous of you to suggest I need to "grow up" or "take responsibility". I stood up in a ballroom full of law enforcement and telecom executives and advocated for the legal, lawful reasons why someone might want to use a prepaid phone without requiring identification. I argued that once you got past accounting, there was no reason to associate the usage details of a phone with a particular party. I even used examples of law enforcement abuse of these facilities to make my point. There is a lot of misinformation in this thread about what "interception" really means and how it's done. And I suspect in no small way that this is because LEAs dont want to tip their hands as to sources and methods. I won't either. What I can say is this: if someone is capturing your traffic and has a court order to do it, it's because there is strong evidence that you're using that traffic to conduct illegal activity. A judge is the final arbiter and looks at the evidence (not collected traffic) to support that conclusion. So... Don't try and sell Adderall on Craigslist. Don't steal credit cards or trade secrets via bots that "phone home". Don't kidnap children and then send pictures of them to your friends. The Fourth Amendment protects you against UNREASONABLE search. The reasonableness test is left up to the courts to decide on.
  - kalms 14y ago
    Those are all good ideas, as long as the state works as originally intended. I think you're putting too much faith in the system.
  - 14y ago
flyinRyan 14y ago
>I'm generally in favor of following the law. IMO it is the responsibility of every citizen to ignore laws that are stupid. Civil disobedience. I realize this would mean some people might say "going 30 by a school zone is stupid!". So be it. If you disobey laws that most people believe are right, then you lose and face the consequences. If you disobey laws that most people will realize are stupid nothing is likely to happen to you.

by Nrsolis 14y ago

svachalek 14y ago

I honestly don't see how voluntary self-disclosure on FB or anywhere else has anything to do with privacy rights.

Nrsolis 14y ago
It matters if you're trying to gain popular support for your political positions. The average joe doesn't see why wiretapping has anything to do with them. They don't understand or care. And those people vote. Sometimes.

mcantelon 14y ago

Yup. People are ignorant of history and therefore of the need for privacy rights. Thankfully encryption doesn't yet depend on the public not being ignorant and politicans not being corrupt.

abecedarius 14y ago

But the question was not why the ISP would conform to CALEA instead of breaking it; it was why you as a programmer would take on the job of providing a snooping system, instead of some other job that does not need a lot of explanation about why it's actually not really so bad. There are reasonable answers to this, but I think it's a fair question. (I don't agree that 'we' should pursue criminals (or suspects) using all legal means.)

chiquitabacana 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil
- kalms 14y ago
  Exactly. What people wouldn't do in the name of bureaucracy.
DanBC 14y ago
I'd rather have good people involved in "evil" systems, to at least try to balance them, than have evil people involved in "evil" systems where there's nothing but external agencies to provide balance. And whatever the system is I'd much rather have competent people working on it.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  Couldn't disagree more. Every good person should avoid working with evil systems. We should also excommunicate any people who do work with evil from our circle as best we can so they can't grow as well in their profession.
  - npsimons 14y ago
    We should also excommunicate any people who do work with evil from our circle as best we can so they can't grow as well in their profession. And by doing that, you ensure they will continue to "work with evil systems" because they will never be able to change jobs.

jrogers65 14y ago

I once quit a job because one of my employer's servers became infected with some malware, spread it to client's computers and the employer refused to notify and apologise to said clients. I sincerely hope that you grow up and take responsibility for your own actions. They are the only things we truly own. I do not believe that you are evil for what you did but I most certainly believe that you are ignorant in a very dangerous way.

Nrsolis 14y ago
I think maybe you missed the point that I actually agree with the mechanisms that are in place. I don't have any disagreements when the framework is used as it is designed to be used. Namely, within the context of due process and rule of law. More importantly: it's somewhat presumptuous of you to suggest I need to "grow up" or "take responsibility". I stood up in a ballroom full of law enforcement and telecom executives and advocated for the legal, lawful reasons why someone might want to use a prepaid phone without requiring identification. I argued that once you got past accounting, there was no reason to associate the usage details of a phone with a particular party. I even used examples of law enforcement abuse of these facilities to make my point. There is a lot of misinformation in this thread about what "interception" really means and how it's done. And I suspect in no small way that this is because LEAs dont want to tip their hands as to sources and methods. I won't either. What I can say is this: if someone is capturing your traffic and has a court order to do it, it's because there is strong evidence that you're using that traffic to conduct illegal activity. A judge is the final arbiter and looks at the evidence (not collected traffic) to support that conclusion. So... Don't try and sell Adderall on Craigslist. Don't steal credit cards or trade secrets via bots that "phone home". Don't kidnap children and then send pictures of them to your friends. The Fourth Amendment protects you against UNREASONABLE search. The reasonableness test is left up to the courts to decide on.
- kalms 14y ago
  Those are all good ideas, as long as the state works as originally intended. I think you're putting too much faith in the system.
- 14y ago

flyinRyan 14y ago

>I'm generally in favor of following the law. IMO it is the responsibility of every citizen to ignore laws that are stupid. Civil disobedience. I realize this would mean some people might say "going 30 by a school zone is stupid!". So be it. If you disobey laws that most people believe are right, then you lose and face the consequences. If you disobey laws that most people will realize are stupid nothing is likely to happen to you.