U.S. Pushes To Ease Technical Obstacles To Wiretapping

New York Times:

Law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, citing lapses in compliance with surveillance orders, are pushing to overhaul a federal law that requires phone and broadband carriers to ensure that their networks can be wiretapped, federal officials say.

The officials say tougher legislation is needed because some telecommunications companies in recent years have begun new services and made system upgrades that create technical obstacles to surveillance. They want to increase legal incentives and penalties aimed at pushing carriers like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast to ensure that any network changes will not disrupt their ability to conduct wiretaps.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[mathme]

10:52 AM on 10/21/2010

I really get nervous when a human is THIS paranoid... I'm pretty damn concerned about a government that views is populace as opposition that it needs to defend itself from.

System is broken.

[disgustedwithall]

10:47 PM on 10/20/2010

It seems Obama is from TX?

[1776 or 1984]

10:28 PM on 10/19/2010

Empire, not Republic

[Y3rMawm]

04:58 PM on 10/19/2010

"They hate us for our freedom."

So yeah, let's just give it up. That way we can all just get along.

[vulpecula762mm]

01:01 PM on 10/19/2010

Hey everybody duck and cover... Kevin in Atlanta is out a-flaggin.... zoooooowey! All the way to Stone Mountain!

[VoteThemAllOut]

12:05 PM on 10/19/2010

Where is all of the liberal/progressive outrage that flowed so freely when it was Bush and company that eased the requirements for surveilance of the people?

Guess Obama and Company will be very correct in their use of these powers? They will only monitor those who are perceived as a potential threat to the liberal/progressive agenda.

[JohnDewey]

12:37 PM on 10/19/2010

The Left's outrage at these sorts of transgressions is personified in the ACLU. You know, the non-profit organization dedicated to preservation of our civil liberties that is despised & vilified by Republicans & Teabaggers?

That said, it's not exactly news that both of the establishment political parties in this country are more concerned with self-preservation than with representing their constituents or the citizenry at large. This is what happens when organizations become entrenched institutions and the hypocrisy isn't exclusive to either party.

I'm well to the left of the Democratic Party and I have no problem criticizing the President's Administration when I think he's wrong - especially on civil liberties. The real question for me is why are my brethren on the right who call themselves libertarians & patriots supporting a bunch of barely-disguised Republicans for elective office? Could it be that the chance at political power is more important to them than principle? Otherwise, there should be no such thing as a "Tea Party" candidate who supports "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," or the use of Guantanamo Bay as an extra-legal prison, or drone attacks, or the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan or the cessation of programs in the social safety net that we, the people, demanded be enacted into law.

[vulpecula762mm]

01:17 PM on 10/19/2010

One.... single.... tear....

F&F

Aside from the effectiveness of the prose there homeboy... I shed water for the simple fact that it is wholly wasted on these nimrods.

[interlude]

02:24 PM on 10/19/2010

Sounds like you'd be for this if pugcons were pushing it. Must be hard keeping your broken glass house heated.

[BlueZoo]

11:59 AM on 10/19/2010

When exactly did we have an expectation of privacy when using a telephone? Most of you are too young to remember what a party line was but, if you didn't have a private line (very expensive at the time), you had a party line. Whatever you said over the telephone could be listened to by everyone on your party line! Before that, phones lines in most towns went through a switchboard usually operated by the town's busybody who kept up on the town's business. The government snooping on private citizen's phone calls for salacious reasons is one thing. The government snooping on a private citizen's phone calls to extract information relating to illegal transactions or terrorism is quite another but it is certainly one the government should pay for.

[JohnDewey]

12:43 PM on 10/19/2010

You've answered your own question. Citizens have an expectation of privacy when they're using a PRIVATE telephone line.

If we were still using party lines to make & receive calls your point would be valid, but given that the telephone companies largely scrapped party lines in favour of access to private lines & automated switchboards, it is quite reasonable to assume that, "private," means, "private."

[WashingtonDCsucks]

07:53 PM on 10/19/2010

Wiretapping must really work, I mean the crime has just dropped to nothing. No murders, not a rape in months! Wow the Kook-Aid is getting stronger I guess, the delusions are getting grander.

Why are the banks still laundering Trillions for the drug cartels??? so much for your wiretaps.

[mathme]

10:54 AM on 10/21/2010

It's about keeping people nervous and scared of the government than really DOING anything.

[JNarragansett]

11:57 AM on 10/19/2010

Anyone interested in this article should check out "Das Leben der Anderen" (The lives of others)

[LaBrayne35]

11:43 AM on 10/19/2010

OH NO....Obama would NEVER condone this...never , never ! And somehow it will all be fine with the libs...when a Democrat initiates this...your adamant protestations just...disappear.

[WashingtonDCsucks]

07:54 PM on 10/19/2010

Puppets don't condone.... they obey... just like the last one did.

[jsgaetano]

11:42 AM on 10/19/2010

"Land of the Free"

[WashingtonDCsucks]

07:54 PM on 10/19/2010

"Land of the Freely exploited"

[disgustedwithall]

10:50 PM on 10/20/2010

Land of the free and checked up on to remain as such?

[Kris Bui]

11:35 AM on 10/19/2010

In all instances the carrier should pay for the 'fixes'. NOT US. And it sounds like no matter what law they pass, with the upgrades and phone changes that are so frequent will stigmy the ability to get the information from the cell phone.

[sinnick]

11:31 AM on 10/19/2010

Greater access by the government to electronic communications will stop illegal financial transactions and fraud. Terrorism concerns are secondary, Madoff would have been stopped and his victims protected if his phone was bugged. People should not have to worry about dirty talk to their mistress being wiretapped by horny agents.

[Michael Gerety]

04:31 PM on 10/19/2010

You do not know the history of the Madoff case do you? Phone taps would have made no difference at all. Evidence was brought to the SEC and they ignored it. The appropriate agency had the data and ignored it. Much like in the case of 9/11 and pilot training etc. The problem is not with the phone taps. The problem is the assimilation of data. There is so much people have no idea what to do with it. Leave the private conversations alone. We have a Bill of Rights you know and there are good reasons for it. Your comment misses the entire point.

[WashingtonDCsucks]

07:55 PM on 10/19/2010

Keep up with that Kook-Aid consumption, the greedmaster depend on their loyal lemmings not questioning the BS.

[Yarrr]

11:20 AM on 10/19/2010

Big Brother's America. Try explaining this to a conservative though, and their eyes glaze over. The real threat is communism, they shout.

[disgustedwithall]

10:52 PM on 10/20/2010

Yep 1950 all over again, perhaps we need to bring back "duck and cover" to the school kids, update to not go under desks, just hold laptop over head.

[floodmfx]

11:20 AM on 10/19/2010

It seems like people didnt read the article.
This wouold require Telecom companies to "design their services so that they can begin conducting surveillance of a target immediately after being presented with a court order."

If a court order has approved surveillance, why should law enforcement have to wait?

[QuietNetworker]

02:09 AM on 10/20/2010

How about because it's the best option we have to keep the price and access to technology reasonable.

How about because law 'enforcement' is on the wrong side of the class war?

How about because "law" enforcement needn't compel private industry who are acting in a lawful way.

How many more reasons do you want for why the pigs should wait in line if they're going to try to wiretap a line?

ALL power to the PEOPLE.

[disgustedwithall]

10:53 PM on 10/20/2010

How about because they do not "wait" as case after case proves.

[TheFabOne]

11:17 AM on 10/19/2010

I think this is blatant overreaching by the Federal Government.

Use some third-party boogeyman to justify prying into the lives of private citizens.

Why be so concerned now? Why weren't you that concerned when those 19 hijackers were plotting to do the damage they did on 9/11? IF indeed.......they were even involved at all?

[floodmfx]

11:39 AM on 10/19/2010

Obviously you didnt read the article - they are not "reaching" any further. This is not about changing when surveillance happens. The rules for law enforcement to begin surveillance are remaining the same!

What is changing is how long a telecom company has to comply with the court order? Sometimes, surveillance is a necessary tool in law enforcement, especially when it is properly reviewed by a court of law. Once law enforcement obtains a court order, why should they have to wait a week for the telecom company to start the surveillance. These companies need to be able to comply with court orders faster. That is all that is changing.

And your assertion that the 911 hijackers were not involved is absurd. You do not even read the article, and post a blasting comment against the government - and at the same time, you get in a jab to promote your quack theory about 911. You are a one heck of a commentator.

[QuietNetworker]

02:10 AM on 10/20/2010

The problem is law enforcement is unnecessary in a truly free society. Those pigs may well be honorable blue color folk, but they've chosen to be on the wrong side of the class war.

[disgustedwithall]

10:55 PM on 10/20/2010

Note your keyword is "Sometimes: which is often the part of speech most use to somewhat exaggerate the threats for personal or agency gain.