North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: voip calea interfaces

  • From: Fred Baker
  • Date: Tue Jun 20 16:43:35 2006
  • Authentication-results:; [email protected]; dkim=pass (sig from verified; );
  • Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1152; t=1150836131; x=1151700131;c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim6001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;; [email protected]; z=From:Fred=20Baker=20<[email protected]>|Subject:Re=3A=20voip=20calea=20interfaces;; b=Bstjq5UXJiyWLwhGecMnge5xjV364FOWOhDOaeGyMmDFndYAZTGm77mkLw/xXZRQHFW/GdAd9/ACQJ3dZhTOCK9jH8tHR6hwUsC+UZycGLnY2W+orIrvYtcImfVL9RGZ;

On Jun 20, 2006, at 11:44 AM, Eric A. Hall wrote:

This is interesting approach. For one, it seems to cover a lot more
technology than CALEA requires. I suppose that is an artifact of trying to
serve multiple countries' requiresments in a single architecture.
Actually, no.


US laws include Title III of the 1968 OCCSS, 1978 FISA, and the 1994 CALEA, with updates related to PATRIOT. The US is unusual in this respect; most of the countries that have published law or regulation relating to lawful intercept simply state that the police have authority to intercept any communications a surveillance subject participates in. As such Cisco implemented the PacketCable solution for CALEA a while, and then went on to meet the requirements of our various customers that have IP data intercept requirements.

You might find the following of interest.It's more about e-911, but if you want to read forensic access in as well, the shoe fits. deploying_emergency_services_e.html

It's my opinion. Cisco is welcome to espouse it as well if it wants to.