On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 06:48:06PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
WASHINGTON--The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday lashed out at
Internet telephony, saying the fast-growing technology could foster
drug trafficking, organized crime and terrorism.
But the change is real. I don't
PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Sean Donelan
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 10:25 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP
Cc: Steven M. Bellovin; Jim Dempsey (E-mail); North American Noise and
Off-topic Gripes
Subject: RE: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists]
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP
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
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Sean Donelan
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 10:25 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP
Cc: Steven M. Bellovin; Jim Dempsey (E-mail); North American Noise and
Off-topic Gripes
Subject: RE: [Fwd: [IP] Feds
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Michael Painter wrote:
A coupla' years ago, the FCC defined Broadband as 200Kbps and above.
Hmm different jurisdiction but Tiscali NTL seems to think broadband is as low
as 100Kbps
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/3xfaster.html?code=ZZ-NL-11MR
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sean Donela
n writes:
In reality, CALEA is a funding bill; it has very little to do with
technology.
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
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
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
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.
]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Sean Donelan
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 1:49 AM
To: Stephen Sprunk
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists]
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004
Donelan
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 4:24 PM
To: Steven M. Bellovin
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists]
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
There's a lot more to it than that -- there's also
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Shultz) [Fri 18 Jun 2004, 21:42 CEST]:
Pay for it? If I remember from CALEA, the providers pay for it
(and eventually their customers), and as for broadband Internet
providers... I'm guessing anyone who offers end user customers
a circuit bigger than 53.333k.
Pet
Stephen J. Wilcox [19/06/04 16:38 +0100]:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Michael Painter wrote:
A coupla' years ago, the FCC defined Broadband as 200Kbps and above.
Hmm different jurisdiction but Tiscali NTL seems to think broadband is as
low as 100Kbps
In India, it is anywhere over 64 Kbps,
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Sean, the capacity requirements aren't as straightforward as you
are interpreting them.
You are absolutely correct, they are not that straightforward. You
should consult a telecommunications attorney with expertise in this area
for legal advice.
-Original Message-
From: Sean Donelan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 8:39 PM
To: Hannigan, Martin
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
Subject: RE: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists]
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Hannigan
Thus spake Niels Bakker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Shultz) [Fri 18 Jun 2004, 21:42 CEST]:
Pay for it? If I remember from CALEA, the providers pay for it
(and eventually their customers), and as for broadband Internet
providers... I'm guessing anyone who offers end user
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP wrote:
Jim Dempsey's testimony at Senator Sununu's hearing is very
interesting, and very educational on these issues.
CALEA was not written for the IP world.
When CALEA was being written, the Internet, IP and information services
were all debated.
I wish I wish I wish that the murdering $*#1! would spend their time
messing with @#*@###! VoIP rather than anything else.
Suresh
** Reply to message from Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri,
18 Jun 2004 09:30:03 -1000 (HST)
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
: Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists
: By Declan McCullagh
: The Senate's action comes as the FCC considers a request submitted in
On 6/18/04 3:30 PM, Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{snip}
Anyone know yet if they've they said who would have to pay for it, and
what they specifically mean by broadband Internet providers?
scott
Well, that's the issue, now isn't it. It all comes down to money and
On 6/18/04 3:41 PM, Jeff Shultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I admit to having some sympathy for the FBI... they're in the middle of
getting ripped up, down and sideways over failures over Sept 11 and
other things, and yet when they ask for more surveilance capabilities,
they get ripped up,
At 3:44 PM -0400 6/18/04, Daniel Golding wrote:
There are three schools of thought here.
One is that the VoIP should not be wiretapped at all. This seems a little
unrealistic considering that we allow other calls to be tapped. The second
school is that VoIP calls should be made no easier or
I admit to having some sympathy for the FBI... they're in the middle of
getting ripped up, down and sideways over failures over Sept 11 and
other things,
yep. try http://www.caedefensefund.org/overview.html
Thus spake Daniel Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The amount of money the FBI would need to spend to tap a VoIP call is
highest with the first option, intermediate with the second, and lowest
with
the last. Some services companies are really salivating for the chance to
add CALEA hardware to VoIP
** Reply to message from Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 18 Jun 2004
14:30:13 -0700
I admit to having some sympathy for the FBI... they're in the middle of
getting ripped up, down and sideways over failures over Sept 11 and
other things,
yep. try
try http://www.caedefensefund.org/overview.html
Hmmm, but they aren't biased, are they?
everything is biased one way or the other in this world.
i also searched the ny times. not a pretty looking state
of affairs.
randy
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Tapping a SONET or Ethernet link isn't tough, and real-time decoding of
packets up to OC12 speeds was doable on COTS PCs several years ago. One US
telco built such software specifically to comply with CALEA when the FBI
inevitably woke up; it
One thing is very clear, however; if the industry doesn't come up with a
working solution first, we will certainly have something unworkable shoved
down our throats by Congress, the FCC, and the FBI.
On the other hand, since you'll have to wait for 10 years in line behind
all the other
Thus spake Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Tapping a SONET or Ethernet link isn't tough, and real-time decoding of
packets up to OC12 speeds was doable on COTS PCs several years ago. One
US
telco built such software specifically to comply
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:41:45PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
** Reply to message from Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri,
18 Jun 2004 09:30:03 -1000 (HST)
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
: Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists
: By Declan McCullagh
they don't need more surveillance capabilities as much as they need to
better utilize what they've already got. More laws aren't the answer to
lack of success enforcing what's already on the books.
We should not be building surveillance technology into standards. Law
enforcement was not
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
I'm told that most CALEA warrants only authorize a pen register, not an
actual tap. Pen registers are trivial to implement, since the provider's
software undoubtedly has an option to produce CDRs for billing or planning
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I'm told that most CALEA warrants only authorize a pen register, not an
CALEA and wiretaps are independent subjects. You can have CALEA
obligations even if you never, ever implement a single wiretap. On
the other hand you may need to implement many
32 matches
Mail list logo
