FBI's tap of the internet started today.

Forums: Current Events
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Today is the official deadline for compliance with the FCC's new interpretation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act(CALEA).

Cable modem companies, DSL providers, broadband over powerline, satellite internet companies and even some universities all have until the end of today to ensure "...the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities."

The Justice Department began lobbying the FCC in 2002 to reinterpret the law as applying to the internet as well and last June a divided federal appeals court upheld the expansion 2-1.

Basically, this means that starting today the FBI will have the ability to wiretap your internet connection, and means that "Common carriers, facilities-based broadband Internet access providers, and providers of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service..." must all now have incorporated into their networks the ability for law enforcement agencies to snoop on those for which they have a court ordered warrant.

It's been pointed out however, that even though it may not necessarily be easier to get a warrant and eavesdrop on somebody, the temptation to do so and avoid real gumshoe detective work will be high. Instead of having to really investigate what a person is up to, they may choose to just try and take a look at what they're doing instead.

Also, what will eventually happen I think is that the RIAA and the MPAA will try to petition courts to snoop on suspected file-sharers and gather intelligence and incriminating information with which to build a case against them.

I mean look how they were able to get so many congressman on board with the whole crackdown on colleges and universities, invoking phrases like "file-trafficking" and warning against job layoffs and unemployment due to losses from piracy. I mean if a law is being broken who's to say which ones they will or will not enforce? I think its only a matter of time.

No longer will ISPs be able to claim that it just doesn't have the means to assist copyright holders in determining who has been uploading content illegally, for now they will be able to monitor an IP address and all the traffic that it's responsible for on the network.

It also means that the govt will now have the ability to monitor for other illegal activity, like buying prescription drugs from Canada, browsing and purchasing drug paraphanalia like bongs, pipes, etc., or perhaps even forums or chatrooms of leftist or other radical organizations.

After today the internet will forever be under the watchful eye of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and you can rest assured that corporations and other private entities will do in everything in their power to use this resource for their own ends.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 806 • Replies: 17

No top replies

@I Understand,

Well, I can't say I am suprised. This compliments with the Military Commissions Act well. This basically means people with leftest ideas can have there lives intruded on over there beliefs. What is this world coming to? Who is to say what I can chose to believe or not. Another scumbag move to intrude on peoples lives.

0 Replies

@I Understand,

As long as everyone votes for Hillairy or Guiliwaffle everything is ok, just go about your business, nothing to see here.

0 Replies

@I Understand,

What's with all the hate for Giuliani?

0 Replies

@I Understand,

The question is why all the love for Gulliani?

0 Replies

@I Understand,

More hate than love here. He says he'll be tough on terror, so people support him, and why not?

0 Replies

@I Understand,

We had $40 billion of homeland security during 9-11. We had all the intelligence we needed. We indeed have to protect our country against terrorism but that is done with defense. Not offense. We don't need to continue to give up our basic rights to ensure security.

0 Replies

@I Understand,

No matter how much you defend, if there's a threat still out there, your going to get hit at some point, and who knows how hard it will be? And that means we just sit here in a little shell of defense until our last allies fall and we're isolated when that does happen.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;16186 wrote:

No matter how much you defend, if there's a threat still out there, your going to get hit at some point, and who knows how hard it will be? And that means we just sit here in a little shell of defense until our last allies fall and we're isolated when that does happen.

Thinking like this is why the terrorist have won. Terrorism is to cause a feeling of terror, Americans are made to think that at any moment they are going to be blown up by the nation of islam. Exact samething as in the cold war when everyone was all scared of nuclear war, and the government used it, just like they are using it today. They are praying on your fears, and that is what "terrorist" want. They have almost succeed in getting Americans to give up their security, and their freedom to get it back...contratulations.

0 Replies

@I Understand,

I'm sure th terrorists would prefer to kill or convert us all than to create a feeling of terror. Whatever, though. If you want to be free, go ahead, surely they're free in Framce, go there. Just don't complain when you're caught on the street during a Muslim riot.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;16222 wrote:

I'm sure th terrorists would prefer to kill or convert us all than to create a feeling of terror. Whatever, though. If you want to be free, go ahead, surely they're free in Framce, go there. Just don't complain when you're caught on the street during a Muslim riot.

I see you have nothing smart to say, as you have resorted to the ol' "love or live it" response.

0 Replies

@I Understand,

I don't care, really. Does the government have any reason to think you're a terrorist? If not, you really don't have to worry. I don't feel any less free because we actually have a good security system and we're fighting them there and not here, I feel safe.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;16248 wrote:

I don't care, really. Does the government have any reason to think you're a terrorist? If not, you really don't have to worry. I don't feel any less free because we actually have a good security system and we're fighting them there and not here, I feel safe.

We do NOT have a good national security system, how many illegals come across the border by the bakers dozen EVERYDAY? How many tons of drugs, weapons, and who knows what else are easily pushed through our ports EVERYDAY?, and we are NOT fighting them in Iraq. I guess the guys they arrested in fort Dix had just come on over from Iraq to kill Americans on a military base? Or the cel in Heidelberg a couple years ago, must have just come over from Iraq. We've had troops over in the Middle East for years, that didn't seem to stop the attacks, as a matter of fact, some of the 911 hijackers were from the very country we were in.

You people need to wake up to the fact that terrorism isn't an enemy line drawn in the sand in Iraq, it is an INTANGIBLE enemy, we painted a middle eastern face on it, and pointed our guns at it, and scream DIE!!!!

I feel free because I know the truth, I am not fearing for my life because the terror alert level hit orange today. But National ID cards, cameras on every corner, taking away our right to defend ourselves (thank whatever lord is out there for Texas), being taxed to pay for hairbrained invasion, while the guys in Afghanistan actually fighting a terrorist organiztion don't even get half the attention, or troops, when there's actually someone to fight there.

Every single time you allow the government to invade your privacy in the name of false national security, you hammer another nail into freedoms coffin. If they want to secure America start at the ******* borders, if we can't even protect our own borders from the flood of drugs, and illegal immigrant, why the **** should ANYONE believe that we are capable securing a third world nation on the other side of the world?

0 Replies

@I Understand,

When did I ever say Iraq? I was referring to Afghanistan, but there's still people in Iraq who would go after us here if we leave.

How many illegal immigrants that come over the Mexican border are terrorists out of the millions that do? It must be lower than the rate of native born terrorists.

And how did they bust the guys with Fort Dix, surely they were getting info from ntheir personal lives in some way.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;16281 wrote:

When did I ever say Iraq? I was referring to Afghanistan, but there's still people in Iraq who would go after us here if we leave.

How many of the hijackers on the flights were from afghanistan? How many were from countries we are not actively fighting in?

Quote:

How many illegal immigrants that come over the Mexican border are terrorists out of the millions that do? It must be lower than the rate of native born terrorists.

How many terrorist mexicans is not the issue. The fact that is is so easy to get across the border means that it is not secure. Not mention that yes, there is a high rate of criminals, which terrorize American civilians. We would rather have politicians turn this into Texico than have a bunch of would be voters think they are racist.

Quote:

And how did they bust the guys with Fort Dix, surely they were getting info from ntheir personal lives in some way.

Don't know how they got them, I don't have access to that kind of info. Though I am 100% positive, even if it did involve something that we, as free Americans should be worried about, it will be spun to fit the bill.

0 Replies

@I Understand,

So we attack countries that people came from rather than where the training camps are? No one in the Saudi government forced those people to be terrorist, but the Taliban was cooperative with al Queda.

And I'm saying I would rather start on jihadist groups before illegal immigrants if we really have to do one first. I really don't care if Texas becomes part of Mexico and I'm not getting into that debate.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;16330 wrote:

So we attack countries that people came from rather than where the training camps are? No one in the Saudi government forced those people to be terrorist, but the Taliban was cooperative with al Queda.

And I'm saying I would rather start on jihadist groups before illegal immigrants if we really have to do one first. I really don't care if Texas becomes part of Mexico and I'm not getting into that debate.

Can you comprehend what I said? I guess not. I am not talking about going to war with Mexico, or illegal immigrants. The point is that our nation is NOT secure.

And if you are talking so much **** about being in Iraq to defend America, you should damn well care if Mexico can steal part of your country.

0 Replies

@I Understand,

I never said anything about going to war with Mexico, I'm talking about domestic security from Muslim terrorists.

I don't see any threat in Mexico owning a large piece of land where Spanish speaking Mexicans are the large majority. If that happens and they do take over, then we can just take it back if we still want it.

0 Replies

FBI's tap of the internet started today.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know