Nothing new here, but just an FYI -- I figured some of you might
want to be aware new pressures being exerted in the CALEA arena.
Via C|Net.
[snip]
The FBI has drafted sweeping legislation that would require Internet
service providers to create wiretapping hubs for police surveillance
and force makers of networking gear to build in backdoors for
eavesdropping, CNET News.com has learned.
[snip]
More:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6091942.html
- ferg
p.s. When did the FBI start drafting legislation? 
Nothing new here, but just an FYI -- I figured some of you might
want to be aware new pressures being exerted in the CALEA arena.
Via C|Net.
[snip]
The FBI has drafted sweeping legislation that would require Internet
service providers to create wiretapping hubs for police surveillance
and force makers of networking gear to build in backdoors for
eavesdropping, CNET News.com has learned.
[snip]
More:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6091942.html
It be far from me to suggest this isn't done as some kind of usual
conspiracy G-Man US thing, but as already discussed, these facilities make
sense to ISP's, and in my opinion, also to law enforcement:
Whether it is to avoid the inconvinience or potential damages to the ISP,
to make actionable intelligence viable quickly or to abuse the legality of
wiretaps, these make sense.
Potential abuse means a lot of things, and it certainly dictates prudence
and vigilence by citizens and the Gov. That said, I think this may really
be a win-win for both the LEO's and the ISP's.
Than again, if an ISP is approached once every 20 years, I hope the FBI
will be covering the costs. Someone always says they do?
Gadi.
I say: Double-plus ungood!
I guess they can mandate whatever in hell they want in the name of
catching bad guys, anything.
It should remind us why those "obnoxious" folks from the ACLU et al
really need to have a more balanced influence.
-b
P.S. In a somewhat unrelated but amusing chapter from the "Clear
Thinking in Jurisprudence" dept:
The NY State Supreme Court last week tossed gay marriage as being
compelled by the state's constitution.
One of the reasonings shot down was the assertion that there is any
problem with discrimination because the result forbids both straights
and gays from marrying same-sex, thus the result is non-discriminatory.
I'll admit there may be arguments to be made on both sides but...WHEW!
I apologize, my note (appended below) was intended for another list
which was also discussing this article.
I hope no one was seriously injured.
-Barry Shein
The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide
Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
The counter-argument to that is that it DOES unfairly restrict, based on gender, the question of "who can marry a female" or "who can marry a male".
But that topic veers widely off-topic, and any future discussion of it should probably find a new home.
Cheers,
D