[LINK] Story: FBI seeking more interception

[Adam Todd]

> >The bulk of the FBI's new requests, however, apply to technologies that
>rely on so-called "packet-switched"
> >networks, where communications data is broken up into digital bits before
>being sent and reassembled at the
> >receiving end.
>
>Hmm. The author is clearly suffering huge gaps in his technical knowledge;
>he doesn't understand that Internet services are packet based. He also
>doesn't understand that all digital communications fit the description
>"communications data is broken up into digital bits" (except that the
>description itself is that of a simpleton).

Actually no, the author isn't wrong, just badly stating.  Although IP is in 
packets, they normally follow the same path.  However the Author is 
referring to ATM which by design breaks even an IP packet into 53 byte 
chunks and sends it via any and EVERY path that is available where it is 
reconstructed at the other end. (Roughly speaking.)

> >But packet switching makes it difficult to monitor a single communication
>seamlessly as it travels across different
> >communications platforms, routes and services, and the FBI wants carriers
>to implement changes that would make
> >such services more reliable and easier to track.
>
>Well. A single communication can easily enough be monitored at its point of
>ingress to the network - for example, the customer-facing access router.

Packet switching is what ATM does, not what IP routers do.

Yes, you are correct that it can be monitored at the ingress point, or the 
egress point.  But that's not always in a jurisdiction that is suitable to 
FBI activities :)

Think of the amount of traffic that passes THROUGH the USA network as it's 
pretty much the "center" of the Internet routing world.

>This matters: inaccurate reporting compromises the quality of any debate
>based on that reporting.

I do agree.