U.S. Is Weighing Wide Overhaul of Wiretap Laws

[Heath]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/us...web-users.html

WASHINGTON ? The Obama administration, resolving years of internal debate, is on the verge of backing a Federal Bureau of Investigation plan for a sweeping overhaul of surveillance laws that would make it easier to wiretap people who communicate using the Internet rather than by traditional phone services, according to officials familiar with the deliberations.

The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, has argued that the bureau?s ability to carry out court-approved eavesdropping on suspects is ?going dark? as communications technology evolves, and since 2010 has pushed for a legal mandate requiring companies like Facebook and Google to build into their instant-messaging and other such systems a capacity to comply with wiretap orders. That proposal, however, bogged down amid concerns by other agencies, like the Commerce Department, about quashing Silicon Valley innovation.

While the F.B.I.?s original proposal would have required Internet communications services to each build in a wiretapping capacity, the revised one, which must now be reviewed by the White House, focuses on fining companies that do not comply with wiretap orders. The difference, officials say, means that start-ups with a small number of users would have fewer worries about wiretapping issues unless the companies became popular enough to come to the Justice Department?s attention.

Still, the plan is likely to set off a debate over the future of the Internet if the White House submits it to Congress, according to lawyers for technology companies and advocates of Internet privacy and freedom.

?I think the F.B.I.?s proposal would render Internet communications less secure and more vulnerable to hackers and identity thieves,? said Gregory T. Nojeim of the Center for Democracy and Technology. ?It would also mean that innovators who want to avoid new and expensive mandates will take their innovations abroad and develop them there, where there aren?t the same mandates.?

Andrew Weissmann, the general counsel of the F.B.I., said in a statement that the proposal was aimed only at preserving law enforcement officials? longstanding ability to investigate suspected criminals, spies and terrorists subject to a court?s permission.

?This doesn?t create any new legal surveillance authority,? he said. ?This always requires a court order. None of the ?going dark? solutions would do anything except update the law given means of modern communications.?

[Rochard]

This comes on no big surprise. The feds have to keep up with technology....

[media]

Wonder how state -vs- federal will work in this case..

Here in Oregon it is illegal to intercept communication without a judges order.. so you'd think if the FBI intercepts without going through the state courts then they'd be guilty of the below statute..

§ 165.543¹
Interception of communications

(1) Except as provided in ORS 133.724 (Order for interception of communications) or as provided in ORS 165.540 (Obtaining contents of communications) (2)(a), any person who willfully intercepts, attempts to intercept or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire or oral communication where such person is not a party to the communication and where none of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

(2) As used in this section, the terms intercept and wire or oral communication have the meanings provided under ORS 133.721 (Definitions for ORS 41.910 and 133.721 to 133.739). [1983 c.824 §3]

[Heath]

Originally Posted by media

Wonder how state -vs- federal will work in this case..

Here in Oregon it is illegal to intercept communication without a judges order.. so you'd think if the FBI intercepts without going through the state courts then they'd be guilty of the below statute..

§ 165.543¹
Interception of communications

(1) Except as provided in ORS 133.724 (Order for interception of communications) or as provided in ORS 165.540 (Obtaining contents of communications) (2)(a), any person who willfully intercepts, attempts to intercept or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire or oral communication where such person is not a party to the communication and where none of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

(2) As used in this section, the terms intercept and wire or oral communication have the meanings provided under ORS 133.721 (Definitions for ORS 41.910 and 133.721 to 133.739). [1983 c.824 §3]

Looking at the crap that's happened in the past 10+ yrs, it seems as if the feds think they can override any state law they want. So this will probably be no different.

[- Jesus Christ -]