[LINK] Australian Privacy Foundation's 'easy option'?

[rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au]

Stephen,

Well, the story's a bit of a technical jungle, but I would guess the 
"easy option" is to:
- Force backdoors in encryption;
- Impose the interception load on ISPs; and
- Require mass-capture of traffic.

OK: encryption is a problem for interception. But interception itself is 
not such a mystery. For that part, you do what you've always done - get 
a court order applying to a specific connection and capture its traffic. 
Even packets traverse physical ports. Yes, I know that there are 
specific workarounds but most services run through a specific physical link.

Let's take the "Skype on cellular" option. Here, a court order to 
capture all traffic from a particular mobile device would enable the 
intercept; once again, it's that once you have the traffic, you need to 
decrypt it.

Where the VoIP call is to a PSTN phone at the other end, things are 
simpler, because at some point the call is likely to be "in the clear" 
(not universally, just "mostly").

I suspect at some point law enforcement is going to have to accept that 
encryption is "here to stay". What if the TCP/IP decryption problem is 
solved? There's always quantum crypto just around the corner.*

RC

* I have a problem with an apparent contradiction in quantum 
cryptography. Intercepting a message supposedly destroys the quantum 
entanglement, meaning you cannot intercept undetected. Yet to overcome 
the distance limitations of the technology, scientists have also 
invented "quantum repeaters" - which seems to me to represent a possible 
MITM attack on the communication path.

stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
> Tony forwards:
>  
>   
>>> Subject: ACMA introduces new number range for innovative  
>>> communications services such as VoIP
>>>
>>> ... new location-independent service type, and number range, to  
>>> facilitate the introduction of innovative communications services ..
>>> <http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD//pc=PC_310162>
>>>       
>
> Hmm .. maybe these two items, above and below, are related? Does anyone 
> know what the Australian Privacy Foundation's 'easy option' might entail?
>
> Net Voice Haunts Spooks
> Chris Jenkins APRIL 24, 2007  
> <http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,21609052%5E15319%5E%
> 5Enbv%5E,00.html>
>
> . Spooks and police these days have to deal with almost untraceable Skype
> calls made from mobile phones using mobile data networks using handsets
> such the Hutchison X series. 
>
> The proliferation of carriers and services and the advent of easily
> available encryption means the days of the humble phone tap have passed,
> IT security expert and Queensland University of Technology faculty of
> information technology associate dean Bill Caelli said. 
>
> "The biggest challenge right now for law enforcement is the legal and
> practical challenge of convergence," Professor Caelli said. "It's a hot
> topic. .. What do you do about VoIP, about Skype and all those sorts of
> things?" 
>
> IP networks don't readily lend themselves to interception or even
> emergency calls services, said the Australian Privacy Foundation's Nigel
> Waters. 
>
> "There are some questions as to whether technically the VoIP carriers are
> able to provide the law enforcement agencies with the interception
> capability that they require. There are ongoing discussions about whether
> they can deliver," he said. 
>
> More and more communications services are being encrypted as a matter of
> course and transmitted over privately owned networks. This encryption is
> forcing agencies to use less capable and easily discoverable means of
> eavesdropping on suspects, such as bugging a room, Professor Caelli said. 
>
> The arrival of IP has thrown up law enforcement issues that simply didn't
> exist in the era of government-owned phone companies offering simple
> services from within the exchange. 
>
> For example, a company using a VPN may conduct encryption using its own
> equipment on its own premises, for information to be transmitted via its
> own network, Professor Caelli said. 
>
> "The dimensions that you're running into are not just technical. They're
> legal and they have to do with ownership and with point of interception,"
> he said. 
>
> "How would interception work in a VPN environment where everyone is
> connected to what is essentially a telephone exchange owned by the 
> company? 
>
> "Once you move across to a TCP/IP world, how do you separate out the
> services?" 
>
> The arrival of new communications was also challenging the safeguards
> that govern the way telecommunications were intercepted, the APF's Mr
> Waters said. 
>
> "The temptation for governments is to say this is all too difficult and
> to take the easy option, and this results in an overall diminution of
> privacy," he said.  The Australian 
> --
>
> Cheers all ..
> Stephen Loosley
> Victoria, Australia
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>