FCC Orders Universities to Change Networks to Allow Surveillance

Here's an interesting New York Times article just published.

Colleges Protest Call to Upgrade Online Systems

By SAM DILLON and STEPHEN LABATON
Published: October 23, 2005

The federal government, vastly extending the reach of an 11-year-old law, is requiring hundreds of universities, online communications companies and cities to overhaul their Internet computer networks to make it easier for law enforcement authorities to monitor e-mail and other online communications.

The article continues...

The action, which the government says is intended to help catch terrorists and other criminals, has unleashed protests and the threat of lawsuits from universities, which argue that it will cost them at least $7 billion while doing little to apprehend lawbreakers. Because the government would have to win court orders before undertaking surveillance, the universities are not raising civil liberties issues.

The order, issued by the Federal Communications Commission in August and first published in the Federal Register last week, extends the provisions of a 1994 wiretap law not only to universities, but also to libraries, airports providing wireless service and commercial Internet access providers.

This order is going to be challenged in court for many reasons, but if not reversed, expect tuition increases to cover the expense of the networks that would need to be overhauled.

Just in 2004 there was an increase of 19% (to 1,710) in court-authorized wiretaps, not including warrants issued for wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, which reached a record 1,754 warrants last year. These new regulations should increase the number of surveillance warrants issued because with more technologies available for surveillance, there will be more opportunities for law enforcement to intercept communications.

Though I haven't studied the new regulations, it seems like the equipment necessary must allow monitoring of intranet communications, i. e., traffic that doesn't go out through the public internet. And most probably that's one big reason the feds are requiring these extensive university network overhauls.

•  I work at a university. Here's my response:

  To any government agent who chooses to invade my privacy and violate any number of federal laws pertaining to the anonymity of the human subjects involved in my research:

  GO FUCK YOURSELF UP THE ASS WITH A CHAINSAW!

  Or for those who are better educated:

  GO CHENEY YOURSELF, ASSHOLE!

  That is all.

  by wiscmass on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 06:26:22 PM PDT

  •  I hope you

    didn't write that from your work computer.  Not that I don't agree with you 100%. :)

    by nupstateny on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 07:31:46 PM PDT

    •  I did

      If they want to make an issue of it, then in the words of their beloved fascist pig of a leader:

      BRING IT ON!

      by wiscmass on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 07:32:45 PM PDT

•  Heh

  Dear FCC:

  The vast majority of e-mails sent every year are commercial spam.  Have fun in my bulk mail folder.  You'll never figure out what e-mail is real and what has just been vomited up from somebody's spam shop.

  Sincerely,

  Bink.

  by bink on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 06:57:54 PM PDT

  •  I've read speculation

    that some spam messages are actually code messages sent by various and sundry clandestine parties to ... a whole lot of people, among whom are the intended recipients. We get them and trash them, the intended recipient gets out the code book. Sometimes, the best way to hide something is in plain sight.

    Not impossible, the crackers with the botnets deal covertely and presumably, on a cash basis, or to deal with better known examples, does anyone believe that a spamking like Alan Ralsky cares who he sells spam messages by the millions to? BTW, do click on the link, you'll enjoy reading the article. (regardless of your politics)

    by alizard on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 08:21:16 PM PDT

    •  Ya know,

      this would be a fabulous way of spreading information. I had never thought of that before.

      During WWII, the allies would broadcast into germany and france coded messages that made no sense to most people except the agents undercover in occupied territory.

      SPAM would allow you to send several emails through hacked computers throughout the world with coded messages to millions.

      Pretty amazing.

      by Cyphrus42 on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 09:19:57 PM PDT

      •  Protocol for D-Day: June 1944...

        Since the date of the invasion could not be given to the Resistance in advance, arrangements were made to order the execution of sabotage plans by code messages broadcast by the BBC. Organizers were instructed to listen to BBC broadcasts on the 1st, 2d, 15th, and 16th of each month. If the invasion was then imminent, they would hear a preparatory code message. They would then remain on the alert listening for a confirmatory message "B."

        by rgilly on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 06:25:06 AM PDT

•  thanks!

  nice article.......big brother is watching....

  by bikko100 on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 08:49:03 PM PDT

•  More info here

  The FCC order is in PDF.

  The response from EDUCAUSE is here.

  Going through the FCC order quickly, it looks like the main concern of the feds is tapping on Voice Over IP (VOIP) communications, a broadband internet alternative to the plain old telephone service.

  by drsmith131 on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 08:59:06 PM PDT

•  So we just encript our voice com too.

  Skru 'em.

  by John West on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 02:41:44 AM PDT