just heard on CNN that the FBI *wants* telephone-tap authorization
for 1 out of 100 telephones in the US.   
  
                        HUH!????
  
Gimme farking break!!
  
CAn you spell creeping dictatorship as well as I can? Oh, the tapping
is simultaneous, in case you wondered. 

53 responses total.

The whole "digital phone" thing has the wiretap community bothered.  There
is, was, or has been (not sure) some legislation saying that the phone
companies have to spend their own (well, the customers) money to make the
system eaasy to tap by various law enforcement agencies.  They also want to
resurrect the Clipper chip in a slightly newer form, and hae that be the only
legal means of encryption.   Ugh.   

So when does the first PGP (Pretty Good Prvacy) phone come to market?  :)

The articles I've read say the guy is working on PGP Phone even as we speak.

I think the software for PGP Phone exists and works.  You can get it and
use it, but getting it to run is somewhat technically demanding.  I don't
think there is a consumer market version on the market yet.

Even asking for the permission to do it scares me. The FBI has absoluteyl NO
right to do it. What can i say? It should be apparently a tragedy to everyone
who hears about it.

<is saying under her breath, "Big Brother is watching you...">

Are you sure it was 1 in 100? I thought CNN's story said 1 in 1,000. Not that
it matters, it's still unnecessary. Ooops, I shouldn't have typed that over
a phone line.

having seen a couple more reports since this was entered ... it's 1 per 100,
and there oughtto be a WHOLE LOT of people VeryPissedOff.
 
That "switch" modification requiring tapping facilities buried into
every new centrl office switch was not perceived as a threat. Now ...
that the facility is buried into the innards of new switches . ... hey, they
are there, let's use them! As if that wasn't the "plan" from the git-go.
  
Btw,   cnn.world.news@turner.com   is advertising for email about the FBI's
proposal. I sent mine. Your turn ..............

Somethng about an electonic Ruby Ridge comes to mind ....... The ACLU, which
I support with the same vigor as the NRA, (and as a conservative, too) figgers
that one thousand eight hundred conversations will be monitored whilst
looking for the *one* they want. Fuck that, stronger language to follow ...

  Hm.  Call me unparanoid, but my cynical view of the FBI is that it's a
ploy to get a huge chunk of change - they want the capacity to listen in,
not to actually do it.  Big bureaucracies fight for money like this all
the time...bigger budgets mean more employees, more power, and likely
bigger budgets in the future.  They'd probably have much rather asked for
the money to blow on employee bonuses, but congress would have busted its
big collective gut laughing.  Cloaking pork as essential national defense
greatly improves its chance of passage.  Not that we shouldn't still be
outraged.

Actually, what they want to do is require the telephone companies to build
this capacity into their networks.  (And, yes, the number is 1 in 100). This,
of course, means that the cost of doing that will be passed on to consumers.
So, in effect, we will have to pay to have our own phones tapped.

Oh hell, we are doing that now. Either a spokesperson for the FBI, or someone
apparently "plugged in" <forgive me> said on radio yesterday, in effect, this
is a move to keep the Big Brother capability of the FBI even with new
technology in the phone system, not to expand their present capabilities.
Now, why do I find that disturbing? <remember to enunciate clearly for the
rcorders, folks>

what "we" are doing now ... involves a lot more grief, several more
people, and a hell of a lot more witneses. 
  
danr, the tapping capacity built int the switches is already in effect.
Now they want carte blanche to use it -vgee, the weapon is loaded,
let's pull the trigger ...
 
Actaully it's a whole lot more like a shotgun, sted of a single
targeted round.  I prefer not to get pellet-splatter on my line
or in my ear - nor in the ear of the "state's police."
  
If i were to be involved ina "continuing criminal enterprise," there 
would be PLENTY of opportunities for tapping ...specifically, focused,
directed, and all the other Grexers w3would not get splattered
with phone taps .. all those innocent conversations that you NOW
consider to be private. 
  
I am not involved in any such enterprise but if YOU are I don't wnat
MY innocent conversations tapped when the "state's police" could 
focus and direct and specifically tap *just* your line, and for
court-ordered cause.
  
<< i think adbarr was typing with tounge-in-cheek .. i hope>>

Sorta kinda like.

Seems really out there to me. I have been thinking of what use this system
must have. Idea 1, Search of geographic areas for a caller. Idea 2, 
the ability to search many lines for a carrier, a way around a swithhook
(a phone called to call another number.) Perhaps a Nethead could give
us an explination of other uses. Otherwise I suspect that the FBI is 
afraid of putting a 'id-trace-number' anyplace in the data stream.
Cool system from the darkside. I wonder if moderate republicans will vote
for it.

It is most disheartening to note that the Federal Bureau surfers whave done
already) use various statisitcal inferences to determine high-crime areas, and
focus their trunk line/VAC lines (phone comm.,internet comm.,fax comm. etc.)
monitoring accordingly. Spooky.

Golly gee, makes ya wonder about your privacy when you live near/in the Detroit
area, huh?

re #11, #12. As I understand it, the phone company and the FBIdo have the
ability to tap phones now, but not as many as 1 in 100.  So, they're
requesting additional tapping capacity.

Dan, I don't know for sure. You are probably correct. I was reporting
what the FBI spokesperson (I believe) said, and you know the goverment
would never lie about something imortant like this! "It would be wrong!"
R. Nixon <government - guess I have to try out that speller janc set up>

Here's what I don't understand. Every wiretap will still require a court 
order, despite what tsty posted in #12 about the FBU requesting 
carte blanche to use it. I don't think our court system can produce
that many authorizations.  This is a cruel joke.

I'm with Rob -- it sounds like pork in disguise. I hope this request
is rejected quickly and decisively.

srw, hate to tell you this, but sometimes those folks don't always
follow the rules. Unless someone inside blows the whistle, it is
kinda hard to know whether your local Secret Police office is 
checking on you. Frankly. we may be facing a real fork in the road
of individual freedom, now that real computers are here. Either
we get involved in our society and remove the causes for oppressive
law enforcement, or learn to salute and look like we mean it.

Yeah, Arnold, I know that is a possibility. 
But I feel that stating that the FBI is violating the law and tapping phones
illegally (at least without some darn good evidence) is an extreme position.

It is going to be a lot easier for them to conduct illegal wiretaps with this
in place, but I am not saying that they are planning to do that. Are you?

TS was saying (I think) that this bill would give them the ability to tap 
whatever they want without any check (i.e. Carte Blanche) and that is not 
the case. The FBI would be breaking the law to tap without a court order.

Steve, I don't think that is quite what I said, and I do not have hard
evidence of specific cases going on right now. I do remember something
about using the IRS for illegal purposes a few years ago, some recent
revelations about Mr. Hoover come to mind, the concept of a "drop-gun" in 
day-to-day law enforcement, and someone named Furhman, I think. I am not
an extremist on these issues, but I know what happens when people have
power, and it usually takes effort and knowledge to control. Left alone
it leads to abuse. I have great respect for the members of the law enforcement
community, and no little amount of fear and skepticism. I work with police
on a regular basis. I do volunteer work for them. I like almost all of them
I have met. But they have a hell of lot of power and I am wary of that. 

OK then, we pretty much agree. Perhaps I transferred too much of the
'Carte Blanche' comment into your responses.

I am willing to believe that such power is abused. I have seen too much
evidence of it myself. I am dead set against this bill.

Okay...a friend and I have a question...  Would they be listening to all of
the phone conversations at once, or would it be random?  Say...Wisconsin one
day, Michigan the next, Califiornia next Tuesday...?  I haven't heard much
about this.

  To have evidentiary value, they would presumably record all
conversations on all tapped phone lines.  When they listen to it
isn't important.  I'd think that if they bothered to get a court
order to tap a line, they would at some point listen to all the
conversations it was used for.
 
  I've heard rumors that the NSA records all international calls,
uses voice recognition to create text transcripts, and then searches
these for key words (such as listing all transcripts with the phrases
"blow up" and "airplane"), picking those calls for further analysis.
It sounds paranoid and unlikely to me, due to the technology required.
But eventually, the technology to do this will exist.

Thanks for the answer, Rob...both of us have raised eyebrows right now.  =)

rob, i heard that too... but i heard it wasnt necessairly international
calls. it also did that with domestic.
if you say 'plutonium' 6 or more times, you get someone's attention.
if you use 'assassainate' and 'president' in the same sentence, you
also get attention.
<darn typos>

Iggy! Don't do that! Now we will have the Feds here! :) 

i dont know that it is true, it is just what i heard.

People--i.e., human beings employed by the FBI, etc.-- don't listen to
tapped lines unless the computers trigger something suspicious.  Computers
scan recorded conversations.  Using the internet makes it easier:  no
voice recognition involved.  That's already current technology. 

The FBI is looking for the financial ability to do more of what it already
can do *legally*--and physically/technically within its financial
constraints.  So, if this makes you paranoid, you are probably very naive
not to be paranoid already. 

I tend to think with it's limited resources the FBI is unlikely to tap the
phones of your average suburban midwestern family.  Remember, the FBI is
part of the bureaucracy, which much decide each day whether to spend money
on an investigation or a bonus for an exec.  I'm being sarcastic, but
really, it ain't worth their time!  Big brother just isn't doing that much
watching tho some fanatics would like it to!

Big Brother Dept.: According to the Wall Street Journal, your credit history
is becoming more important in your qualification for auto insurance than your
driving record. I guess this makes a lot of sense in a true capitalistic
context.

        Does anyone here know about cointelpro?  That was the FBI's scheme
to infiltrate "radical" organizations like AIM (American Indian Movement),
the Black Panthers etc in the 70s (and early 80s ?).  It involved illegal
domestic surveliance disruption tactics etc.  I know that Clinton 
adminastration is currently investigating Act Up and Earth First, and
also right wing groups like militias.  Combine this with what happened
at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and the message is that if you are involved in
any political activity more "radical" than voting republicrate than be
afraid, be very afraid.

Turns out they want the "capability", which means funding, to tap "up to" 1
out of 100 in "high crime" areas.

Sounds pretty "important" to "me".   :)

Has anybody heard about the new rchnology that lets you listen to the phone
connection for several seconds after they hang up?  And if they install thiss
system and attach it to a supper computer, how many phone calls will they be ab
to tap each minute?  Search for key words like "assasin" or "bomb" and 
ask for legal taps based in part on this info?

No can do.  When a phone is hung up it has a mechanical switch the breaks
the phone line right inside the phone.  i.e. the mic is disconnected.

Read an interesting blurb in a moderated newsgroup that indicated the one
in 100 figure was an error, that it should have been one in 1,000.  Wonder
if the mistake originated with the Times, or a news service upstream?
Interesting how multiple news organizations all used the same wrong
figures.  At any rate, since the report cited this as a 2,000% increase,
I wonder if the correct value should be a 200% increase, or if they got
that part right.
 
>Subject: FBI Requests Much Larger Wiretapping Capability
>
>The Federal Bureau of Investigation wants Congressional approval for a plan
>that would increase its wiretapping about 2,000% from current capabilities,
>giving it the ability to monitor as many as 1 in every 100 phone lines in
>certain high-crime areas.  In contrast, fewer than 1 in 174,000 phone lines
>received court-authorized taps in recent years. The FBI says the plan is
>"absolutely essential for law enforcement and public safety."  (*The New
>York Times* 2 Nov 1995, p. A1)
>
> [A subsequent correction in the Times noted that it was really
>  ONLY 1 in 1000.  PGN]

        This item now linked to cyberpunk, the conf of net culture.  j cyber
at the next Ok: prompt.

Phones can be modified to do that...it's an interesting bugging technique. 
When you call someone, the connection is not actually broken until *they*
hang up.  (Try it!  If you  hang up, then pick the pone back up, the
connection will still be there as long as their phone is off hook.)  So
imagine this.  you call someone, then hang up.  The connection isn't broken
yet.  They use a tone to activate a small device that bypasses the
hookswitch and puts the mic back online.  Slick huh?  not terribly
practical, though. due to where the call has to originate from.

Sure, anything can be modified.  That smoke alarm in your room could be
a camera with a mic... or hidden in the computer monitor on your desk, etc.

Trust me on this one. There is more frightening 'spytech' than you want to
know about. I'm not that technically oriented to know exactly how the
devices work, but here's a sample things I've encountered:

Chemical sniffers: Can detect any prest combination of chemicals or
chemical compounds up to 2.5 km away when used from an airborne platform.

Computer 'readers': Pin head sized sensor that detects EMF output from a
computer monitor and can show you (by remote) what's on a computer screen
at any time.

Fiber optic lenses: Nearly undetectable to a visual scan; can provide a
fairly good resolution image from a static wall mount or when slipped
under a door and fed to a transmitter.

Thermal sattelite imaging: Satteleite imaging system that uses optic and
thermal imaging to let you 'see' in the dark. Used to find enemy locations
for special ops.

'Hands free' detonation: Explosive charges that are coded to be stable
until the reception of an encrypted signal from a sattelite. The sattelite
can be programmed ahead of time (hence the 'hands free' aspect)

Sleep well tonight.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss