North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: S.2281 Hearing (was: Justice Dept: Wiretaps...)

  • From: John Curran
  • Date: Mon Jun 21 00:08:02 2004 
At 11:11 PM -0400 6/20/04, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
>Every type of electronic communications in the USA may, and probably
>has been intercepted at one time or another, not just VoIP.  Everything
>outlined in the ETSI standards, and more, is available for purchase today
>from vendors in the USA.
>
>Its a lot more than simply facilitating access.  Under Title III, carriers
>already had to provide reasonable technical assistance, with compensation.
>The objection generally isn't about facilitating "access."  Law
>enforcement already has "access," and has shown no reluctance in obtaining
>court orders for ISPs to give them "access."

Access isn't the question.  This is about assisting law enforcement by
facilitating access, which by CALEA is providing mechanisms and capacity
for lawful intercept in advance. 

As you are aware, it is possible to be unable to fulfill a court order
for intercept due to technical reasons, and the DoJ sees this as a
real distinct possibility for an increasing volume of voice calls if
S.2281 is approved as-is.

>So what is the real problem?  What is law enforcement actually asking for?

Amazingly, that's contained in the DoJ comments:

"In both the IP-enabled services and CALEA proceedings at the FCC, the Department of Justice has made the same points that I want to emphasize here this morning: (1) that public safety and national security will be compromised unless court orders for electronic surveillance can be implemented by providers; (2) that assistance requirements should apply to every service provider that provides switching or transmission, regardless of the technologies they employ; and (3) that if any particular technology is singled out for a special exemption from these requirements, that technology will quickly attract criminals and create a hole in law enforcement's ability to protect the public and the national security."

Looks pretty clear to me:  assistance requirements (i.e. the requirement
to have LI capacity and mechanisms in place in advance) should apply to
all providers, and in particular, that VoIP providers who do not provide
direct PSTN access (e.g. FWD, Skype) should not get an exception here
as specified in the draft bill.

/John