Author Topic: FBI plans new Net-tapping push (Read 698 times)

Nash · « **Reply #15 on:** July 08, 2006, 09:36:17 PM »

"proposes, proposes, proposes...."

If I were to judge Congress based on the proposals alone, I'd be stuck here at the keyboard 24/7.

God knows that 99% of the proposed bills that make it to an actual vote down there are ludicrous enough. Don't make me dig around for every "proposed" one.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #16 on:** July 08, 2006, 09:39:11 PM »

So you don't have a problem with the FBI's proposal...

Toad · « **Reply #17 on:** July 08, 2006, 09:39:49 PM »

From the article:

Quote

FBI Agent Barry Smith distributed the proposal at a private meeting last Friday with industry representatives and indicated it would be introduced by Sen. Mike DeWine, an Ohio Republican, according to two sources familiar with the meeting.

Goodness! Proposals on both sides of the border!

If you're a Canadian with nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.

If you're happy Canadian and you know it clap your hands!

Vulcan · « **Reply #18 on:** July 08, 2006, 09:48:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bad31st
What a stellar idea - Lets force networking companies to create back doors to allow for compromised network security.

Umm no... lets force US based netowking companies build in backdoors which the chinese will quickly reverse engineer (they have two universities who are dedicated to reverse engineering cisco code in case you don't know) and completely own the US internet at will.

Meanwhile other countries won't touch US networking equipment with a barge pole given its 'back doors' - watch the US networking industry die at the hands of the FBI

And terrorists will use open source encryption systems which will defeat the FBI's wire tapping system because they rely on people using US networking equipment with backdoors and will have no real backend sniffing systems... and thus the real criminals will be totally immune.

I didn't realise the FBI was full of morons?

Nash · « **Reply #19 on:** July 08, 2006, 09:52:50 PM »

Don't get me wrong....

The fact that somebody, anybody, drafts legislation doesn't mean a gawdamned thing.

And that includes the FBI. It means nothing whatsoever. No reason to panic. It's just somebody writing something.

There's no way that this will eventually lead to the internet being monitored.

There's no way that this will lead to phones being tapped without a warrant. Absolutely no way that this will lead to someone's banking activity being scrutinized. No way that that this will lead to anyone's being arrested without a warrant.

No way that way that they'll end up in prison without being charged. No way that they'll remain there without the services of a lawyer. No way that his family won't be told about it. No way that it will never lead to a court hearing. No way that they will be stuck there forever this way.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #20 on:** July 08, 2006, 09:56:25 PM »

So you've let your MP know of your lack of concern then...

Toad · « **Reply #21 on:** July 08, 2006, 09:56:37 PM »

I plan to panic right after all the Canadians panic.

Nash · « **Reply #22 on:** July 08, 2006, 10:00:37 PM »

Trust me.

If I were concerned about these kinds of antics on this side of the border, I'd be going bat**** crazy...!

Are you kidding me?

I'd do my level best to ensure that nothing like what you folks are having to endure happens up here.

Thankfully I haven't had to.

What are you doing about it?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #23 on:** July 08, 2006, 10:06:11 PM »

I don't have a voice in Canada.

Nash · « **Reply #24 on:** July 08, 2006, 10:07:08 PM »

But you've got one down there.

What are you doing about it?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #25 on:** July 08, 2006, 10:08:10 PM »

What I say down here won't change Canadian proposals...

Nash · « **Reply #26 on:** July 08, 2006, 10:09:29 PM »

Lets revisit the thread title:

"FBI plans new Net-tapping push"

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #27 on:** July 08, 2006, 10:19:21 PM »

Sorry, I was responding to

Quote

I'd do my level best to ensure that nothing like what you folks are having to endure happens up here.

Quote

Canadian Parliment
In the spring of 2003, the government introduced Bill C-46 to "better detect, prosecute, and deter serious capital market fraud." This was a response, ostensibly, to the high-profile corporate scandals of 2002 and to the U.S. corporate accountability legislation, known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act [pdf]. Bill C-46 adds a general (s. 487.012) and specific (s. 487.013) production order provision to Criminal Code and the legislative history language mirrors that found in the Lawful Access Consultation document. Production orders allow investigators to compel persons not under investigation (third parties) to produce, at a specified time and place and in a specified form, data or documents (or to prepare and produce a document based on data or documents) relevant to the commission of an alleged offence under any federal law, unlike the Convention which only requires that such orders be used in the investigation of serious criminal offences.

Bill C-46 was adopted by the House of Commons on November 5, 2003, but the Senate did not pass the bill before Parliament was prorogued on November 14, 2003. On February 12, 2004, the House reintroduced, passed and sent to the Senate Bill C-46 as Bill C-13. It is, in all substantial respects, the same. This bill passed on 22 March 2004.
b]

I suppose you voiced your concerns.

Nash · « **Reply #28 on:** July 08, 2006, 10:31:05 PM »

"computer systems managers who intercept a private communication "originating from, directed to or transmitting through" their system, for quality control purposes or to protect against unauthorized use of computer (s. 342.1(1)) or mischief in relation to data (s. 430(1.1))."

Quality control purposes? Unauthorized use of computers?

Come on.

Here's the thing, Holden...

I'm going to do my best to be honest with you. I'm going to be candid, admit where I'm in error, and just generally be open to whatever argument that arises during this kind of debate.

So..... I'm not going to take too kindly to these kinds of red herrings:

Quote

Bill C-32 which provides a new exemption to cover computer systems managers who intercept a private communication "originating from, directed to or transmitting through" their system, for quality control purposes or to protect against unauthorized use of computer (s. 342.1(1)) or mischief in relation to data (s. 430(1.1)).

I'm not AWMac. I'm not Dago.

You should know better than trying to pawn this kind of thing off on me.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #29 on:** July 08, 2006, 10:32:40 PM »

I quoted the wrong paragraph... check out my edited post.