Australian Government Proposing Laws to enable the police to gain access to encrypted mobile phones.

[mr moose]

On 8/14/2018 at 9:38 PM, asus killer said:

you do not know how search warrants work. There are always limits to what you can search.

 

 

I like the way everyone ignored this sentence to go on their paranoid the world will kill us narrative.  

[Amazonsucks]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I like the way everyone ignored this sentence to go on their paranoid the world will kill us narrative.  

Because warrants are irrelevant to cryptographic backdoors.

 

If there is a deliberate flaw in the security of a system, its not just the guys with a warrant who can get in. 

[LAwLz]

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I like the way everyone ignored this sentence to go on their paranoid the world will kill us narrative.  

I ignored it because it is not relevant.

Even if you don't care about privacy, this is still a horrible, horrible idea because of the security risk.

Even if you think the Australian government will never abuse this power (despite all the evidence that in the end, spying tools always gets abused by employees to for example stalk people they know), do you honestly think North Korea, China or Russia won't?

Or how about your average hacker with malicious intentions, once this backdoor gets leaked to the public?

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I ignored it because it is not relevant.

Even if you don't care about privacy, this is still a horrible, horrible idea because of the security risk.

Even if you think the Australian government will never abuse this power (despite all the evidence that in the end, spying tools always gets abused by employees to for example stalk people they know), do you honestly think North Korea, China or Russia won't?

Or how about your average hacker with malicious intentions, once this backdoor gets leaked to the public?

Going by the quick read it's not a backdoor though, it's allowing the use of technology that can already be done now with the legal framework to allow it.

 

On 8/14/2018 at 4:25 PM, overlord360 said:

" if you use an app to send a message to your friend, it's encrypted as it travels between the two phones or devices.

When it arrives, it's decrypted for your friend to read.

Under the proposed changes, if law enforcement agencies have a valid search warrant to monitor your phone, they could read the decrypted message at the same time as your friend does."

The above is not a back door, it doesn't really have anything to do with the end device either. The above is man in the middle breaking the chain of trust in PKI by deceiving the device in to thinking it's talking to the secure messaging service when it's talking to the interceptor.

 

This would not allow other 3rd parties to hijack the device and abuse a backdoor, there isn't one, not in the way people talk about back doors in devices or encryption.

[Stefan Payne]

The thing is, that those things will most likely be used against "Terrorists" like Robert Spencer (not the Richard one) or other people who stir up shit like the two Canadians did a couple of days/weeks ago...

 

That is sadly how it looks right now...

 

[asus killer]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

The thing is, that those things will most likely be used against "Terrorists" like Robert Spencer (not the Richard one) or other people who stir up shit like the two Canadians did a couple of days/weeks ago...

 

That is sadly how it looks right now...

 

sounds a little like paranoia. By the time the government that is in control of the police, the police itself, and even the judges (they should be autonomous from government in any modern state) are all in on some conspiracy against someone's freedom (and that did not done anything illegal) you have far bigger problems than what they can see in your phone.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I ignored it because it is not relevant.

Even if you don't care about privacy, this is still a horrible, horrible idea because of the security risk.

Even if you think the Australian government will never abuse this power (despite all the evidence that in the end, spying tools always gets abused by employees to for example stalk people they know), do you honestly think North Korea, China or Russia won't?

Or how about your average hacker with malicious intentions, once this backdoor gets leaked to the public?

considering that it is a backdoor and that it can be hacked, is it fair to give criminals the perfect tool to mastermind a terror attack incognito or have a murderer out on the street because police can't legally and by the book with a warrant search his phone? all on some random russia conspiracy scare?

[Stefan Payne]

58 minutes ago, asus killer said:

sounds a little like paranoia. By the time the government that is in control of the police, the police itself, and even the judges (they should be autonomous from government in any modern state) are all in on some conspiracy against someone's freedom (and that did not done anything illegal) you have far bigger problems than what they can see in your phone.

Ever heard about Tommy Robbinson??

Or about the woman who was arrested in the UK because she owned some people??

 

Oh and Robert Spencer is banned from the UK since around 2013 or so...

 

Things like that are already happening all over the world, especially in the UK, where people who spoke out about some things that the gouvernment doesn't like got arrested for bullshit reasons...

And especially in the UK you can get fined for quoting rap lyrics or other stuff with their draconian hate speech laws....

 

But yeah, its totall paranoia if its already happening in some countrys in the World. Absolutely...

[asus killer]

7 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Ever heard about Tommy Robbinson??

Or about the woman who was arrested in the UK because she owned some people??

 

Yeah, its total paranoia, when what I said is something you can already see in the UK. Absoluttely...

 

i don't know those people and i'm not from Canada or UK. Maybe some English or Canadian can comment on your allegations on shady stuff from those governments. Or even some Australian can comment on can that happen there. I'll pass.

[suicidalfranco]

 

what could possibly go wrong with government taking non harming information about it's citizenry?

 

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

Because warrants are irrelevant to cryptographic backdoors.

 

If there is a deliberate flaw in the security of a system, its not just the guys with a warrant who can get in. 

Not a backdoor, they specifically said this would not weaken device encryption.

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I ignored it because it is not relevant.

Even if you don't care about privacy, this is still a horrible, horrible idea because of the security risk.

Even if you think the Australian government will never abuse this power (despite all the evidence that in the end, spying tools always gets abused by employees to for example stalk people they know), do you honestly think North Korea, China or Russia won't?

Or how about your average hacker with malicious intentions, once this backdoor gets leaked to the public?

Very relevant, if the authorities have no power to access data then they can't access that data.   

 

2 hours ago, asus killer said:

sounds a little like paranoia. By the time the government that is in control of the police, the police itself, and even the judges (they should be autonomous from government in any modern state) are all in on some conspiracy against someone's freedom (and that did not done anything illegal) you have far bigger problems than what they can see in your phone.

 

considering that it is a backdoor and that it can be hacked, is it fair to give criminals the perfect tool to mastermind a terror attack incognito or have a murderer out on the street because police can't legally and by the book with a warrant search his phone? all on some random russia conspiracy scare?

Amen to that.   I have been voting longer, I have been running my own business for longer and I have been following politics and technology for longer than most LTT users have been alive.  I was voting before the internet was a thing, I was following politics and technology since before emails and PM encryption were a thing.    People of today have no idea, they think they know it all, they think they understand the politics of running a democratic country.  They know enough for me to see they know very little. They only know life in the last tens years yet have the audacity to claim those who don't observe the past are doomed to repeat it.  I have news, we all know about the past, some of us actually lived in it.   Hell,  some don't even realise what are new problems and what are old problems.   As I have said many times before,  this is not a communistic dictatorship, nor is it a country coming out of one. We are not in the heaves of a military ruling party and that is not likely to happen.  The general trend is for countries to move from dictatorships to free/democratic nations, there is significantly less that go the other way*.  Some might do it slowly and others like to move too fast, but the fact is that is the way it happens.   In Countries like Australia bad laws and government policies can be changed and often are**. Some take longer as they are heavily debated in the public sphere, however they all get changed eventually.   We already have laws about such things in place that would make most LTT users think of us like china, but the fact is they don't get abused by governments the way people think they will, they don't slow down our growth or impede our freedom.  They do stop us being criminals and stealing from one another but hey, if that's a bad thing then I don't want to live in your country.   In fact I would hazard that the government in the US is more corrupt and abuses their people a lot more than the Aussie government does even though we technically have no freedom of speech laws, no rights to bear arms, no rights to equal representation under the law in all states etc.  but then again we are also healthier, live longer and have a higher personal wealth, standard of living is higher and likelihood of dying in a robbery, gang crime or shooting is significantly lower.

 

now before people jump in with isolated cases of corruption or antiquated laws that just don't seem to want to go anywhere, I am talking about our country and systems as a whole.   I don't need to cherry pick the odd situation in order to try and claim the whole thing is broken. Therefore I will not respond to silly accusations that are usually context dependent and not something that can just be applied to everything.

 

 

*https://ourworldindata.org/democracy

Quote

In the second half of the 20th century the world has changed significantly: Colonial empires ended, and more and more countries turned democratic: The share of the world population living in democracies increased continuously – particularly important was the breakdown of the Soviet Union which allowed more countries to democratise. Now more than every second person in the world lives in a democracy.

 

**ten examples of the government or government law being challenged by high court appeal.

https://www.collaw.edu.au/news/2016/11/15/top-10-most-influential-court-cases-of-the-last-40-years

[samcool55]

57 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

-snip-

 

what could possibly go wrong with government taking non harming information about it's citizenry?

 

Because that's what people think, but is incorrect.

Information is always potentially harmful depending what's going to be done with it. Nobody can guarantee it will only be used for good stuff forever because it's impossible to predict the future.

[suicidalfranco]

5 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Because that's what people think, but is incorrect.

Information is always potentially harmful depending what's going to be done with it. Nobody can guarantee it will only be used for good stuff forever because it's impossible to predict the future.

pic is a shot of a page from poland citizen record books from the late 1800, handy tool when the german came in 1939

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Going by the quick read it's not a backdoor though, it's allowing the use of technology that can already be done now with the legal framework to allow it.

Well, the source in the OP is mostly just reciting what the politicians are saying, which is of course extremely biased because of course they want to make their own proposals good and get people onboard.

 

Here is what the legislation says. (Please note that I have not read all of the documents yet, so I may be getting some things incorrect).

The parts I am referring to are mostly outlined on page 8 of the explanatory document.

 

This bill introduces three new items into the telecommunications act.

 

*Designated communications provider is defined as a foreign or domestic communications provider, device manufacturer, component manufacturer, application provider, or traditional carriers and carriage service provider.*

 

1) Technical Assistance Request (TAR) - This is a framework for how a designated communications provider can voluntarily provide assistance to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) and Australian Signals Directorate (ASD).

Nothing wrong with this if you ask me. In fact, it is very good to have this.

 

2) Technical Assistance Notice (TAN) - A TAN requires a designated communications provider to provide assistance to these organizations IF THEY ARE ALREADY CAPABLE OF DOING SO.

This is what is mostly being highlighted in the article, and I think that's alright. I have some privacy-related concerns and I think this can set a very bad presidency even if you completely trust the Australian government, I don't have faith in some other parts of the world. In any case, it seems somewhat reasonable to me, and a lot of companies already provide help to law enforcement when asked. I'd even go as far as to say most companies do.

 

3) Technical Capability Notice (TCN) - I am going to quote the actual, legal document which explains what a TCN is because it is very important that people can't say I am interpreting things. Here is what a TCN is:

Quote

Allow the Attorney General to issue a technical capability notice, requiring a designated communications provider to build a new capability that will enable them to give assistance as specified in the legislation to ASIO and interception agencies.

A technical capability notice cannot require a provider to build or implement a capability to remove electronic protection, such as encryption. The Attorney-General must be satisfied that any requirements are reasonable, proportionate, practicable and technically feasible. The Attorney-General must also consult with the affected

provider prior to issuing a notice, and may also determine procedures and arrangements relating to requests for technical capability notices.

 

While the bill explicitly says they can't force encryption to be removed, it does also specify that they are required to build new tools and capabilities into their services to comply with requests.

For example, WhatsApp uses E2EE. It uses unique keys for each device and only the unique install of WhatsApp on your phone can decrypt a message sent to you. The company WhatsApp does not have the capability to intercept messages in-flight, and the bill specifically says that they can't be forced to add that capability.

However, the bill states that WhatsApp could be forced to add a "feature" where messages are automatically uploaded to their or government owned servers after your device has decrypted it.

The article even uses a similar situation with iCloud as an example, where content is encrypted on the phone and the government can't request it be decrypted or backdoored, but they could demand access to iCloud.

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

if you completely trust the Australian government

I don't trust Australians so I think that counts .

[Amazonsucks]

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Going by the quick read it's not a backdoor though, it's allowing the use of technology that can already be done now with the legal framework to allow it.

 

The above is not a back door, it doesn't really have anything to do with the end device either. The above is man in the middle breaking the chain of trust in PKI by deceiving the device in to thinking it's talking to the secure messaging service when it's talking to the interceptor.

 

This would not allow other 3rd parties to hijack the device and abuse a backdoor, there isn't one, not in the way people talk about back doors in devices or encryption.

They already do compromise the endpoint in that fashion all the time, just as Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake and Bill Binney have shown us.

 

They dont need this to pass. Its been done for years. They claim its usually done against foreign nationals who have given them probable cause, but we know thats not true from the leaks.

 

This is like the UK snoopers charter, which is the first step in creating a 1984 police state AKA China.

 

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Not a backdoor, they specifically said this would not weaken device encryption.

Very relevant, if the authorities have no power to access data then they can't access that data.   

 

Amen to that.   I have been voting longer, I have been running my own business for longer and I have been following politics and technology for longer than most LTT users have been alive.  I was voting before the internet was a thing, I was following politics and technology since before emails and PM encryption were a thing.    People of today have no idea, they think they know it all, they think they understand the politics of running a democratic country.  They know enough for me to see they know very little. They only know life in the last tens years yet have the audacity to claim those who don't observe the past are doomed to repeat it.  I have news, we all know about the past, some of us actually lived in it.   Hell,  some don't even realise what are new problems and what are old problems.   As I have said many times before,  this is not a communistic dictatorship, nor is it a country coming out of one. We are not in the heaves of a military ruling party and that is not likely to happen.  The general trend is for countries to move from dictatorships to free/democratic nations, there is significantly less that go the other way*.  Some might do it slowly and others like to move too fast, but the fact is that is the way it happens.   In Countries like Australia bad laws and government policies can be changed and often are**. Some take longer as they are heavily debated in the public sphere, however they all get changed eventually.   We already have laws about such things in place that would make most LTT users think of us like china, but the fact is they don't get abused by governments the way people think they will, they don't slow down our growth or impede our freedom.  They do stop us being criminals and stealing from one another but hey, if that's a bad thing then I don't want to live in your country.   In fact I would hazard that the government in the US is more corrupt and abuses their people a lot more than the Aussie government does even though we technically have no freedom of speech laws, no rights to bear arms, no rights to equal representation under the law in all states etc.  but then again we are also healthier, live longer and have a higher personal wealth, standard of living is higher and likelihood of dying in a robbery, gang crime or shooting is significantly lower.

 

now before people jump in with isolated cases of corruption or antiquated laws that just don't seem to want to go anywhere, I am talking about our country and systems as a whole.   I don't need to cherry pick the odd situation in order to try and claim the whole thing is broken. Therefore I will not respond to silly accusations that are usually context dependent and not something that can just be applied to everything.

 

 

*https://ourworldindata.org/democracy

 

**ten examples of the government or government law being challenged by high court appeal.

https://www.collaw.edu.au/news/2016/11/15/top-10-most-influential-court-cases-of-the-last-40-years

Isolated cases like the NSA leakers who have exposed the USA, UK, Aus, Canada and NZ 5 eyes spying alliance's massive abuses against their own citizens that have been going on for longer than youve been voting?

 

Just because one is old doesnt mean theyve been observant enough to be correct. Your argument depends on a pretty huge logical fallacy there, and besides, someone who lived a couple thousand years before you said "it is the wise man who understands that he is not wise".

 

Its pretty obvious that Australia is following the UKs lead here, and the UK is following Chinas lead. Theyre literally prosecuting people for making jokes in the UK now.

 

As to all this Orwellian spying... does it REALLY stop crime? Definitely would love to see some data on mass spying actually preventing crime in any country. Its usually a way to keep people in line if history and leaks are anything to go by.

 

 

[AlTech]

Next Week in Off Topic: Australian Government proposes laws to enable Police Officers to break into houses of suspected criminals without a warrant.

 

Following Week: Australian Government proposes laws to treat citizens as de facto Guilty until proven innocent and modifies their constitution to allow Stop and Frisk.

 

Next Month: All Australians arrested for suspected treason.

 

/JOKE

[asus killer]

17 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

They already do compromise the endpoint in that fashion all the time, just as Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake and Bill Binney have shown us.

 

They dont need this to pass. Its been done for years. They claim its usually done against foreign nationals who have given them probable cause, but we know thats not true from the leaks.

 

This is like the UK snoopers charter, which is the first step in creating a 1984 police state AKA China.

 

Isolated cases like the NSA leakers who have exposed the USA, UK, Aus, Canada and NZ 5 eyes spying alliance's massive abuses against their own citizens that have been going on for longer than youve been voting?

 

Just because one is old doesnt mean theyve been observant enough to be correct. Your argument depends on a pretty huge logical fallacy there, and besides, someone who lived a couple thousand years before you said "it is the wise man who understands that he is not wise".

 

Its pretty obvious that Australia is following the UKs lead here, and the UK is following Chinas lead. Theyre literally prosecuting people for making jokes in the UK now.

 

As to all this Orwellian spying... does it REALLY stop crime? Definitely would love to see some data on mass spying actually preventing crime in any country. Its usually a way to keep people in line if history and leaks are anything to go by.

 

 

always the same mistake, i don't think that a court mandated warrant was absolutely nothing to do with that NSA crap, with zero accountability and absolutely lawless territory. In fact you kind of contradict yourself, if Australia already had access to the NSA spying nonsense, why would they need a law with a judge and a warrant to see messages? they probably have a lot better sources and no hassle to go in front of a judge.

 

When you start to get judges involved in a free country (other then the US) most will be very critical, probably even more then any one of us.

 

[AngryBeaver]

This is why if you want to do shady stuff you use an encryption method specifically for it. There are some out there that provide some information with a regular key, but have hidden volumes that are only accessible with the special key. So you can comply with the cops and hand over your key, but they would no see or be able to access the "special" hidden volumes.

 

They just need to bring this to phones. On top of that, I am all for people using encryption on their machines and phones. Just watch out for Bitlocker as microsoft CAN provide the decrypt key for it and I know from personal experience that their are FRED's (Forensic workstations and servers) that are specifically built to crack bitlocker keys. They take some time from weeks to months, but they do get the job done eventually.

[Amazonsucks]

13 minutes ago, asus killer said:

always the same mistake, i don't think that a court mandated warrant was absolutely nothing to do with that NSA crap, with zero accountability and absolutely lawless territory. In fact you kind of contradict yourself, if Australia already had access to the NSA spying nonsense, why would they need a law with a judge and a warrant to see messages? they probably have a lot better sources and no hassle to go in front of a judge.

 

When you start to get judges involved in a free country (other then the US) most will be very critical, probably even more then any one of us.

 

Making it legal means they dont have to use parallel construction to go after people like they do now...

 

There is nothing contradictory about that. Its how its been done for years. Now they just dont want to bother with the extra effort of parallel construction.

 

Have you been paying attention to the stuff thats been revealed by Snowden since 2013 or Drake and Binney years earlier than that? Its been huge international news for years now.

 

@AngryBeaver

 

Dont forget that in places like China, "shady stuff" can be not wanting to get your organs harvested while youre alive because of your religion and in the UK it can be simply offending an SJW or person of a specific religion, or making a joke deemed offensive by the thought police.

[asus killer]

9 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Making it legal means they dont have to use parallel construction to go after people like they do now...

 

There is nothing contradictory about that. Its how its been done for years. Now they just dont want to bother with the extra effort of parallel construction.

 

 

 

sorry but you aren't making any sense to me. So you are saying they have a off the books, illegal system to do it, and now they want to go legit just because what? for the extra challenge? and that will save them work? why didn't they go legit in the first place in front of a judge them? why do a NSA style crap first?

 

because judges wouldn't go for it or keep it quiet and top secret. i really don't know Australia but when you put a judge from a democratic normal 1st world country in the middle they are going to have all but a easy job to do anything shady and keeping it quiet.

I bet even in crazy USA most judges would be very critical of most if not all they do.

[AngryBeaver]

5 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Making it legal means they dont have to use parallel construction to go after people like they do now...

 

There is nothing contradictory about that. Its how its been done for years. Now they just dont want to bother with the extra effort of parallel construction.

 

Have you been paying attention to the stuff thats been revealed by Snowden since 2013 or Drake and Binney years earlier than that? Its been huge international news for years now.

 

@AngryBeaver

 

Dont forget that in places like China, "shady stuff" can be not wanting to get your organs harvested while youre alive because of your religion and in the UK it can be simply offending an SJW or person of a specific religion, or making a joke deemed offensive by the thought police.

People just need to see this for the double edged sword it is now. In the states it is even worse.

 

This means you might see more people breaking the law get convicted, but also means you are giving up the protections you currently have from being convicted.

 

In the states it is much different. The law here which should be based on facts just isn't the case anymore. It has become a system of who cares about what really happend... we need to come up with the most convincing set of events. This has led to many people convicted for crimes they did not commit or criminals walking free. By allowing them easier access to this information they can paint a case even more against you than they could before. Text messages and the like are REALLY easy to take out of context. You don't have all the verbal inflections and queues that really can make or break the way people view something.

 

It would be my luck I type a message to a friend saying "Omg i have this place, someone should burn it to the ground"  he would know I was joking and I would know it was a joke, but if that building happened to burn to the ground and the police can pull that conversation... it would be pretty damn hard to convince a jury I didn't do it. That is why a lot of these conversations are protected. Currently they would need to ask me about it or my friend who both can say with no uncertain terms that it was just normal joking banter... you can't do that when they just bring records of the conversation.

[Amazonsucks]

30 minutes ago, asus killer said:

 

sorry but you aren't making any sense to me. So you are saying they have a off the books, illegal system to do it, and now they want to go legit just because what? for the extra challenge? and that will save them work? why didn't they go legit in the first place in front of a judge them? why do a NSA style crap first?

 

because judges wouldn't go for it or keep it quiet and top secret. i really don't know Australia but when you put a judge from a democratic normal 1st world country in the middle they are going to have all but a easy job to do anything shady and keeping it quiet.

I bet even in crazy USA most judges would be very critical of most if not all they do.

Its called the FISA court and its a rubber stamp shitshow that approves something like 98% of requests. 

 

So they do go for it. Its extremely naïve to think the government has your best interests in mind.

 

And you should look up how parallel construction works. Theyre "making it legal" so they can go after more people without people being able to fight back like they can now. Parallel construction gets tossed out in court and since all the whistleblowing people have become more aware of it happening with respect to surveillance.

 

Its not about the challenge. Its about quantity. If they want to go after more people for whatever reason, they cant use parallel construction if itll be thrown out in court. They have to make it legal to adapt to the changing public awareness of how much unconstitutional spying goes on...

 

 

[descendency]

If Apple can send an encrypted, secure communication to one person that is 100% secure... why it is that message can't go to 2 people? This 'backdoor' is no less secure than the current implementation. This isn't even really a backdoor. 

[asus killer]

11 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Its called the FISA court and its a rubber stamp shitshow that approves something like 98% of requests. 

 

So they do go for it. Its extremely naïve to think the government has your best interests in mind.

 

And you should look up how parallel construction works. Theyre "making it legal" so they can go after more people without people being able to fight back like they can now. Parallel construction gets tossed out in court and since all the whistleblowing people have become more aware of it happening with respect to surveillance.

 

Its not about the challenge. Its about quantity. If they want to go after more people for whatever reason, they cant use parallel construction if itll be thrown out in court. They have to make it legal to adapt to the changing public awareness of how much unconstitutional spying goes on...

 

 

Without googling it im assuming fisa is a USA thing?

 

This is not a USA forum or even the topic is about the USA, not all evolved countries are like the USA.

That's why i excluded them in a precious post, they are very shady and not at all an example to follow, much like China or Russia.

 

If you keep applying this to the US or China or Russia even, then yes i would agree with you. I dont even trust their courts. 

But for the luck of the rest of the evolved world its a bit different.

[Technous285]

20 minutes ago, descendency said:

If Apple can send an encrypted, secure communication to one person that is 100% secure... why it is that message can't go to 2 people? This 'backdoor' is no less secure than the current implementation. This isn't even really a backdoor. 

Unless the sender of the message intends for it to be sent to more than one person, it's a breach of privacy for the service provider (Apple in your example) to send it to ANYBODY other than the intended original recipient.

 

It's not up to Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Google, et all to decide who does or does not get access to private communications between you and somebody else.

Same as it's not up to the teleco's or any government or law agency to just randomly tap and record your phone calls (sent or received) to be shared with somebody you didn't authourise for it to be sent to, which is also why government & law enforcement agencies need to get warrants from the courts to wiretap the phones of suspected (not confirmed) people to gather evidence (without alerting the suspect about it).