Previous Politech messages: http://www.politechbot.com/2005/10/24/wiretapping-rules-face/ http://www.politechbot.com/2005/10/24/making-universities-pay/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Fwd: [chineseinternetresearch] giving them ideas, state subsidies, and having them manufacture the equipment ... Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:20:24 +0100 From: Greg Walton <jamyang@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <093AD9CE-CBAD-43E2-8ED7-A625C9CB59C7@private> Declan, Below is thread from the Chinese Internet Research group that you may find relevant to your message, [Politech] Making universities pay for FBI surveillance, thank you very much FCC [priv]. All the best, Greg Walton http://gregwalton.civiblog.org Begin forwarded message: > From: Greg Walton <jamyang@private> > Date: 23 October 2005 08:11:36 BDT > To: chineseinternetresearch@private > Subject: Re: [chineseinternetresearch] giving them ideas, state > subsidies, and having them manufacture the equipment ... > Reply-To: chineseinternetresearch@private > > > ... and that's the tip of the iceberg. > > Thank you, Anne. I think the article is perhaps more on topic that > you suggest. CALEA originates in 1988, so your criticism is of the > Bush administrations (plural, all 3 - er...so far). In China the PSB > and the MSS is responsible for wiretapping, rather than the MII. > > With regards to the internationalization of CALEA as it relates to > China in particular I would like to quote a summary of the respected > privacy expert and Sun Microsystems employee Susan Landau, speaking > at the 8th USENIX Security Symposium, August 23-26, 1999 in > Washington, D.C., > > ----- > . . . Landau is often asked for her opinion of what the future holds > here. She feels there is a race going on. This race involves what the > NSA and/or the FBI are trying to get away with, and what happens in > Europe. If enough European competition starts taking away US > business, then Congress may pass a certain set of laws. She also > feels the FBI has a much more polarized view than the NSA; the NSA > knows the game is lost as far as crypto goes, and it has a vested > interest in the security of the US industry. A weak US computer > industry makes the job of the NSA that much more difficult. Export > controls that hamper the US computer industry are problematic > precisely for that reason. She also feels that the currently admired > practice of open source may change or influence the policy. If source > code becomes public information, it will be harder to enforce export > control, since the reason to do so will become less relevant. > She ended her talk with a poignant story that took place shortly > after CALEA passed. The FBI invited law enforcement from around the > world to learn how to install and use similar wiretapping > capabilities of digital switching technology. One of the police > forces invited belonged to Hong Kong, which is now under Chinese > jurisdiction; every year the State Department lists human-rights > abuses from around the globe, and China is consistently at the top of > this list. She ended with twin questions, "What are the technologies > we're exporting, and what are the values we're exporting?" > > ------ > > There is nothing new in the following, its all in fact extracted from > China's Golden Shield: > > As you are probably aware, > > "there is increasing concern that much of this surveillance > technology is being exported, without any end-use criteria, to > countries that flagrantly abuse the fundamental human rights of their > citizens. Governments of countries with poorly developed > infrastructures rely on industrialized countries to supply them with > surveillance equipment. The transfer of surveillance technology from > the developed to the developing world is now an important component > of the post-Cold War arms industry. (8) With scant attention given to > differing levels of human rights compliance, standardization across > national borders is leading many to argue that a global architecture > of electronic surveillance is emerging, with its origins in the US > law enforcement community." > > As early as 1988, in a program known internally to the US Federal > Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as "Operation Root Canal," US law > enforcement officials demanded that telephone companies alter their > equipment to facilitate the interception of messages. All but one of > the major global telecom companies refused to contemplate altering > their equipment. The exception was a Canadian company, Nortel > Networks, which agreed to work closely with the FBI. More than 75% of > North American Internet backbone traffic travels across Nortel > Networks systems, and the company derives a significant proportion of > its sales revenue from the US telecom market. > > .... > > Given Nortel’s early involvement in the development of standards in > support of the CALEA legislation, it is natural that the first > digital switch to reach market, and give service providers and > vendors the ability to meet basic CALEA compliance, should be > manufactured by Nortel. > > The sophisticated DMS Supernode switching technology is manufactured > in China through a joint venture with the Chinese government known as > GDNT (Guangdong Nortel). At the time, Nortel said of this technology > transfer that it "will contribute immeasurably to the development of > the Chinese telecommunications industry." > > In terms of funding, Nortel invested an extra US$37 million in GDNT > (on top of funds agreed in a 1993 Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] > with the state planning commission) – an investment that followed hot- > on-the-heels of the announcement that the US government would pay > equipment manufacturers compensation for the implementation of CALEA > > .... > > Of course, not mentioned in Golden Shield was that the establishment > of GDNT was skillfully facilitated by the *alleged* double/triple > agent Ms.Katrina Leung acting as a consultant for Nortel - while > *allegedly* spying for China, while acting as a spy for the FBI. > According to allegations, Ms. Leung had affairs with two FBI agents > over a 20-year period while she was being paid $1.7-million (U.S.) by > the FBI to spy on China. However, court documents allege that she was > also spying for China and stole documents from the agents. During > that period, Ms. Leung, whose code name was Parlor Maid, also ran a > consulting business and her clients included Nortel, which paid her > $1.2-million to help open markets in China. She was also active in > the Republican Party and attended U.S. President George W. Bush's > inauguration. > > "Mrs. Leung has never been an employee of Nortel Networks. Mrs. > Leung was the president of a firm engaged by Nortel Networks in the > early 1990s as a representative to assist us in the creation of a > Chinese joint venture," said Tina Warren, a Nortel spokeswoman. "The > firm was paid for its services and our business relationship with it > terminated in 1996. Documents filed in court show that Nortel hired > Ms. Leung's company, Merry Glory Ltd., in October, 1990, to help > establish a joint venture in China: GDNT. Nortel was subpoenaed in > January and handed over all documents relating to Ms. Leung. > > Ms.Leung's defense argued that the alleged double agent is loyal U.S. > citizen: > > "It's not even the tip of the iceberg here," Levine said. "What we > have here is a woman who pledged her allegiance to this country ... > for many years she worked at the direction and the control of the > FBI. "She was used by them to do what they wanted her to do. She > acted as they told her to act." Levine said the FBI's handling of her > client now looks like "absolute abuse." She mentioned that Smith, her > handler, and another FBI agent had been sleeping with her. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 23 Oct 2005, at 07:21, Anne Stevenson-Yang wrote: > > >> Not on topic, but I can't resist noting that here goes the Bush >> Admin again, >> one-upping China in invasiveness and disregard for individual >> liberties. >> Imagine if MII tried to do this. I'm curious: who is planning to >> operate >> such a "network operations center," and what would its daily >> activities be? >> >> The core of the plan: >> >> "But the federal law would apply a high-tech approach, enabling law >> enforcement to monitor communications at campuses from remote >> locations at >> the turn of a switch. >> >> It would require universities to re-engineer their networks so that >> every >> Net access point would send all communications not directly onto the >> Internet, but first to a network operations center where the data >> packets >> could be stitched together into a single package for delivery to law >> enforcement, university officials said." >> Colleges Protest Call to Upgrade Online Systems >> >> - E-Mail This <javascript:document.emailThis.submit();> >> - Printer-Friendly</2005/10/23/technology/23college.html? >> ei=5094&en=82e2a961640ae05b&hp=&ex=1130040000&partner=homepage&pagewa >> n >> ted=print> >> - Single-Page</2005/10/23/technology/23college.html? >> ei=5094&en=82e2a961640ae05b&hp=&ex=1130040000&partner=homepage&pagewa >> n >> ted=all> >> - Reprints <#> >> - Save Article <#> >> >> By SAM DILLON<http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=SAM >> %20DILLON&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=SAM% >> 20DILLON&inline=nyt-per>and >> STEPHEN >> LABATON<http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=STEPHEN% >> 20LABATON&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=STEPHEN% >> 20LABATON&inline=nyt-per> >> Published: October 23, 2005 >> >> The federal government, vastly extending the reach of an 11-year- >> old law, is >> requiring hundreds of universities, online communications companies >> and >> cities to overhaul their Internet computer networks to make it >> easier for >> law enforcement authorities to monitor e-mail and other online >> communications. >> Skip to next paragraph <#secondParagraph> Phil Sears for The New >> York Times >> >> Larry D. Conrad of Florida State University calls the order to >> upgrade >> Internet systems "overkill." >> [image: Related] Related Site: Communications Assistance for Law >> Enforcement >> Act <http://www.fcc.gov/calea/> (fcc.gov <http://fcc.gov>) >> >> The action, which the government says is intended to help catch >> terrorists >> and other criminals, has unleashed protests and the threat of >> lawsuits from >> universities, which argue that it will cost them at least $7 >> billion while >> doing little to apprehend lawbreakers. Because the government would >> have to >> win court orders before undertaking surveillance, the universities >> are not >> raising civil liberties issues. >> >> The order, issued by the Federal Communications Commission in >> August and >> first published in the Federal Register last week, extends the >> provisions of >> a 1994 wiretap law not only to universities, but also to libraries, >> airports >> providing wireless service and commercial Internet access providers. >> >> It also applies to municipalities that provide Internet access to >> residents, >> be they rural towns or cities like Philadelphia and San Francisco, >> which >> have plans to build their own Net access networks. >> >> So far, however, universities have been most vocal in their >> opposition. >> >> The 1994 law, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, >> requires telephone carriers to engineer their switching systems at >> their own >> cost so that federal agents can obtain easy surveillance access. >> >> Recognizing the growth of Internet-based telephone and other >> communications, >> the order requires that organizations like universities providing >> Internet >> access also comply with the law by spring 2007. >> >> The Justice Department requested the order last year, saying that new >> technologies like telephone service over the Internet were >> endangering law >> enforcement's ability to conduct wiretaps "in their fight against >> criminals, >> terrorists and spies." >> >> Justice Department officials, who declined to comment for this >> article, said >> in their written comments filed with the Federal Communications >> Commission >> that the new requirements were necessary to keep the 1994 law >> "viable in the >> face of the monumental shift of the telecommunications industry" >> and to >> enable law enforcement to "accomplish its mission in the face of >> rapidly >> advancing technology." >> >> The F.C.C. says it is considering whether to exempt educational >> institutions >> from some of the law's provisions, but it has not granted an >> extension for >> compliance. >> >> Lawyers for the American Council on Education, the nation's largest >> association of universities and colleges, are preparing to appeal >> the order >> before the United >> States<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/ >> countriesandterritories/unitedstates/index.html?inline=nyt-geo>Court >> of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Terry W. Hartle, a >> senior vice president of the council, said Friday. >>[...] _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Mon Oct 24 2005 - 23:02:05 PDT