In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sean Donelan writes: >On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: >> There's a lot more to it than that -- there's also access without >> involving telco personnel, and possibly the ability to do many more >> wiretaps (have you looked at the capacity requirements lately), but >> funding is certainly a large part of it. From Section (e) of >> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2518.html : >> >> Any provider of wire or electronic communication service, >> landlord, custodian or other person furnishing such facilities >> or technical assistance shall be compensated therefor by the >> applicant for reasonable expenses incurred in providing such >> facilities or assistance. > >That is not part of CALEA.
I know; that's precisely my point. (CALEA is 18 USC 2522, I believe.) The passage I quoted is from the older wiretap law -- and it requires the government to pick up the costs. As you note below, that cost was shifted by CALEA. > >Carriers found to be covered by CALEA must provide certain capabilities >to law enforcement. For telecommunication equipment, facilities or >services deployed after January 1 1995 the carrier must pay all reasonable >costs to provide the capabilities. > >The capacity requirements are interesting. In some cases, the carrier is >required to have more law enforcement tapping capacity than customer >capacity. The government sets the capacit requirements without any >regard for the cost of maintaining the capacity. If there are multiple >competitive carriers in the same area, all of the carriers must have the >same capacity. If you have a single customer in Los Angeles, you must >provide the capacity for at least 1,360 simultaneous interceptions. How >many SPAN ports do you have? > >As I mentioned, the wiretap acts and CALEA are really independent. > --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb