Live data from Hacker News

RouterOS – Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (2012)

wiki.mikrotik.com

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: RouterOS – Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (2012)

#31

Go address some of the posters "why is the front page worthy" - I'm not surprised that 3 letter agencies get all the data they want, but very often it's very covert and not so "official".

Lawful interception is not for "three letter agencies", but for the police (TLAs have their own totally different ways to get this data, in the US they even have their own courts for this). So these are generally documented, judicial processes.

Re: RouterOS – Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (2012)

#32
post #11

Welp. That's news to me. Thought it was just Telco's and not bleedy every bloody Networking equipment vendor out there. And especially not on every MitM VoiP providers. This clinches the death of Skype though. This is why we can't have nice things. I need to stop reading these things. I just become more and more misanthropic as days go by.

[deleted]

Re: RouterOS – Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (2012)

#33

Go address some of the posters "why is the front page worthy" - I'm not surprised that 3 letter agencies get all the data they want, but very often it's very covert and not so "official".

Lawful interception is not for "three letter agencies", but for the police (TLAs have their own totally different ways to get this data, in the US they even have their own courts for this). So these are generally documented, judicial processes.

The US really needs a distinction between executive powers (which exist because legislative bodies grant the executive branch wide latitude), and legislative powers (specific things the legislature has said to do).

Re: RouterOS – Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (2012)

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not sure this is front-page worthy why not ? i believe it is especially as i imagine most people are not aware that such things exist in freedom lands

> why not ? i believe it is especially as i imagine most people are not aware that such things exist in freedom lands Do you mean firewall rules? Because firewall rules definitely exist in "freedom lands." A lot of the comments here seem to show an eagerness to misunderstand this. Even in a "freedom land" law enforcement still needs the power to intrusively investigate criminal suspects, because ineffective law enfor…

in freedom land people generally believe that things they own will not call the cops on them. in contrast in soviet russia people generally belived everything they owned called the cops on them

Re: RouterOS – Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (2012)

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why not ? i believe it is especially as i imagine most people are not aware that such things exist in freedom lands Do you mean firewall rules? Because firewall rules definitely exist in "freedom lands." A lot of the comments here seem to show an eagerness to misunderstand this. Even in a "freedom land" law enforcement still needs the power to intrusively investigate criminal suspects, because ineffective law enfor…

in freedom land people generally believe that things they own will not call the cops on them. in contrast in soviet russia people generally belived everything they owned called the cops on them

Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with a thing someone owns calling the cops on them. A CALEA intercept would be implemented before the data reaches the end user.

Re: RouterOS – Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (2012)

#37
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not. This is broadband. This goes far beyond pen-registers. This is bloody everything from a particular endpoint, and not in an application specific manner. There is very little but storage reqs and someone getting uppity keeping this from becoming a dragnet type of surveillance mechanism.

The warrant is part that makes it not a dragnet.

Depends on how specific and difficult the warrants are.

Re: RouterOS – Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (2012)

#38
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in freedom land people generally believe that things they own will not call the cops on them. in contrast in soviet russia people generally belived everything they owned called the cops on them

Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with a thing someone owns calling the cops on them. A CALEA intercept would be implemented before the data reaches the end user.

im taking the liberty to talk figuratively. but yeah the thing you own instead of calling the cops will by design and purpose snitch on you when they come knocking

Re: RouterOS – Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (2012)

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not sure this is front-page worthy why not ? i believe it is especially as i imagine most people are not aware that such things exist in freedom lands

if you're on HN there is a level of confidence that you understand basic networking, and that you are aware your traffic goes through a multitude of devices before you get the data you requested. it should come as no surprise that those devices can log the data passing through it.

Just wait... someone will complain this is a GDPR violation. ;)

Re: RouterOS – Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (2012)

#40
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with a thing someone owns calling the cops on them. A CALEA intercept would be implemented before the data reaches the end user.

im taking the liberty to talk figuratively. but yeah the thing you own instead of calling the cops will by design and purpose snitch on you when they come knocking

How so? Unless you own a router with CALEA capabilities and specifically configure it to log all of your data, it's not going to snitch on you.
Post reply on HN