The issue of online surveillance has taken on added urgency with the explosion of social media and chat services and the proliferation of different types of online communication. Technology firms are seen as critical sources of information about crime and terrorism suspects. Today, if you're a tech company that's created a new and popular way to communicate, it's only a matter of time before the FBI shows up with a court order to read or hear some conversation, said Michael Sussmann, a former federal prosecutor and a partner at the law firm Perkins Coie's Washington office who represents technology firms. If the data can help solve crimes, the government will be interested. Some technology companies have developed a wiretap capability for some of their services. But a range of communications companies and services are not required to do so under what is known as CALEA, the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. Among those services are social media networks and the chat features on online gaming sites,hongae.com.Former officials say the challenge for investigators was exacerbated in 2010, when Google began end-to-end encryption of its e-mail and text messages after its networks were hacked,Chanel Online. Facebook followed suit. That made it more difficult for the FBI to intercept e-mail by serving a court order on the Internet service provider, whose pipes would carry the encrypted traffic.The proposal would make clear that CALEA extends to Internet phone calls conducted between two computer users without going through a central company server what is sometimes called peer-to-peer communication. But the heart of the proposal would add a provision to the 1968 Wiretap Act that would allow a court to levy fines.One former senior Justice Department official said law enforcement officials are not seeking to expand their surveillance authorities. Rather, said Kenneth Wainstein, assistant attorney general for national security from 2006 to 2008, officials are seeking to make sure their existing authorities can be applied across the full range of communications technologies. Proponents say adding an enforcement provision to the 1968 Wiretap Act is a more politically palatable way of achieving that goal than by amending CALEA to redefine what types of companies should be covered. Industry and privacy experts,true religion outlet, including some former government officials, are skeptical. There will be widespread disagreement over what the law requires, said Albert Gidari Jr., a partner at Perkins Coie's flagship Seattle office who represents telecommunications companies,http://www.pilewu.com/celine.html. It takes companies into a court process over issues that don't belong in court but rather in standards bodies with technical expertise. Some experts said a few companies will resist because they believe they might lose customers who have privacy concerns,pilewu.com/louisvuitton. Google, for instance, prides itself on protecting its search service from law enforcement surveillance,http://www.pilewu.com/coach.html, though it might comply in other areas,http://www.pilewu.com/louisvuitton.html, such as e-mail. And Skype has lost some of its cachet as a secure communications alternative now that it has been bought by Microsoft and is reportedly complying with wiretap orders.Susan Landau, a former Sun Microsystems distinguished engineer, has argued that wiring in an intercept capability will increase the likelihood that a company's servers will be hacked,douuo.com/burberry. What you've done is created a way for someone to silently go in and activate a wiretap, she said. Traditional phone communications were susceptible to illicit surveillance as a result of the 1994 law, she said, but the problem becomes much worse when you move to an Internet or computer-based network.
Related articles:

• the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
• and had one hit and one RBI.
• Complete Recruit

上一篇： ” Blankenship said. “Hopefully 下一篇： to do 's book and end up with something rich but ragged