The best stratergy to take towards CALEA is to get familiar and get
ready to comply. If for some reason it turns out some don't have to
comply, then no loss. If it turns out that we all have to comply, then
we're ahead of the game.
Think positive!
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
Mark,
Wireless providers DO have to comply with CALEA whether you like it or not.
As quoted from the link I sent you earlier;
"Nor does our interpretation of section 332 of the Communications Act
and its implementing regulations here alter either our decision in the
CALEA proceeding to apply CALEA
obligations to all wireless broadband Internet access providers,
including mobile wireless providers, or our interpretations of the
provisions of CALEA itself. As the Commission found, and the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed, the purposes and intent of
CALEA are strikingly different than those of the 1996 Telecommunications
Act, which is embedded in the Communications Act. As the Court noted,
“CALEA--unlike the 1996 Act--is a law-enforcement statute . . .
(requiring telecommunications carriers to enable ‘the government’ to
conduct electronic surveillance) . . . . The Communications Act (of
which the Telecom Act is part), by contrast, was enacted ‘[f]or the
purpose of
regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and
radio’ . . . . The Commission's interpretation of CALEA reasonably
differs from its interpretation of the 1996 Act, given the differences
between the two statutes.”121 Thus, our interpretation of the separate
statutory provisions in section 332 of the Communications Act, whose
purposes closely track those of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and
the Communications Act generally, in no way affects our determination
that mobile wireless
broadband Internet access service providers are subject to the CALEA
statute.122"
Here is the link again so you can read it if you choose to do so.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pdf
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
wispa wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:31:56 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote
Mark,
wispa wrote:
I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people
that this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from
the FCC,
where
it's attempting to write law instead of Congress.
It's a mess, because it's NOT LAW, only Congress can write law and
it has
yet
to write a law that says we have to do squat.
Did you even bother to read the press release mentioned in your
recent post?
http://www.askcalea.com/docs/20040317.fbi.release.pdf
As quoted from the press release mentioned above;
"Congress enacted CALEA in 1994 to help the nation's law enforcement
community maintain its ability to use court-authorized electronic
surveillance as an important investigative tool in an era of new
telecommunications technologies and services. Today, electronic
surveillance plays a vitally important role in law enforcement's
ability to ensure national security and public safety."
Also quoted from the same press release;
"Specifically, the petition requests the FCC establish rules that
formally identify services and entities covered by CALEA, so both law
enforcement and industry are on notice with respect to CALEA
obligations and compliance. The petition makes this request because
disagreements continue between industry and law enforcement over
whether certain services are subject to CALEA. The petition requests
[WINDOWS-1252?]> the FCC find “broadband access” and “broadband
telephony” to be
subject to CALEA."
Ok... here's an old joke.
What's the difference between dogs and cats? The dog looks at you
and says "you give me everything, provide me with home, care,
medicine, food, take care of all my needs... You must be a god!".
The cat looks at you and says "you give me everything, provide me with
home, care, medicine, food, take care of all my needs... I must be a
god!".
We're saying EXACTLY the same thing, but the perspective is
different. Read up on CALEA itself. There's absolutely NOTHING in it
that even remotely addresses ISP's. It addresses TAPPING TELEPHONE
CONVERSATIONS. Nothing else. It is VERY specific. When it was
written, broadband didn't even EXIST, how COULD they have written a
law that applies to it?
It's as if Congress wrote a law that regulates the maintenance
schedules on trains. Along comes OSHA, and demands that the DOT rule
that the law must apply to trucking, as well, even though the whole
concept is absurd. Congress knew it would NEVER get away with just
wholesale handing it's shopping list of demands to industry for
changes in the way it's equipment worked, and making industry PAY for
it. Duhhh. That would never have made it past... well... even a
kangaroo court. And the telcos would have fought it, collectively,
with all thier legal muscle.
Over the years, the FCC has (correctly) and and consistently insisted
we are NOT "telecommunications services" or providers. Now, it
suddenly says we ARE, but only for purposes of CALEA. Ohhh, could you
park that decision on anything closer to what resembles vapor? I
doubt it. Even worse, since the law didn't apply to us, it doesn't
pay for what it OBVIOUSLY has to pay for.
The FCC cannot just spend money, Congress has to do that. So, along
comes the FCC and says WE have to pay for it.
I've said this before, I'll say it again, the FCC threw in the most
egregious demands they could think of (like requiring us to pay for
it), in order to ensure this would LOSE in a legal challenge, since
they weren't inclined to continue arguing with the FBI and DOJ. So,
instead of defending what was defensible, they sidestepped and tossed
the mess in our laps, and we're just sitting here taking it without so
much as a word of protest. Gee, we must look like real shmucks to
them by now. EVERYONE fights or at least ARGUES back when they do
stuff... well, except for us. We beat on our own people for
objecting. MAn, READ THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON EVERYTHING THE FCC
DOES! Fear to tell them they're wrong? Heck no, they say it every
possible way they can think of!
Had Congress tried CALEA without paying for it initially, the fight
would have been HUGE, CALEA would have been tossed out in court on
very firm ground I am sure.
The FCC doesn't write law. It can't. The DOJ and FBI have NO END TO
THE LIST OF DEMANDS, their wishes are infinitely long. But just
because they WANT it doesn't mean they get it, at our expense.
You and I pay taxes, so that when the government wants something, it
has to debate, vote, and pony up and pay in the public budget for it.
If we, the people, were not protected by the Constitution, the police
would just stop us and demand we fill their car with gas, buy them new
tires, tune it up, repaint their cars, use OUR building for their
office, provide them internet for free, the list goes on and on and
on. After all, we have to have cops and they have to catch the bad
guys, right?
If that last sentence (which EVERYONE who is defending this FCC ruling
is citing almost verbatim) were justified, then all the nonsense
preceding it would be too.
I stand on VERY firm ground with this. I found numerous examples of
industry commentators, industry executives, legal analysis and so on,
which was published a few years back, already reading the writing on
the wall and wondering why the lawsuits weren't flying. Do the
finding. These opinions are not some radical eastern Oregon's WISP's
lone thoughts. I found them published starting in the mid 90's
forward in a wide array of places.
Just because DOJ wants something, or the FBI wants something, doesn't
mean they have ANY right to it at our individual expense. If it costs
a single dollar, then we have both the right and OBLIGATION to demand
that Congress write the law, vote to spend the money for them to have it.
The telcos spent big time to protect this principle back in the 90's,
by ensuring the regulators that an unfunded mandate would NOT fly with
them. They won.
We're undoing 100% of that and setting the precedent that whatever the
DOJ and FBI want, with the concurrence of the FCC, we're going to give
them, period. Don't think it stops with this. The list WILL grow,
and we have all but completely discredited our own defense by failing
to object ALL ALONG.
Once the deadline for implementation passes and we fail to object to
having to spend even a single dollar, we're sunk. We will have given
them the green light for ANYTHING they want, and they WILL come and
take it.
Once we've accepted it without objection, the next time will require a
whole busload of lawyers. Since we did not object collectivley, that
burden will then fall on us individually, and not a single one of us
has the SLIGHTEST ability to change their minds or influnce the course
of the federal government. Nor have any of us the money to hire the
busload of lawyers, either. The government already has them, because
it expects us to fight back.
The fact that even a single one of you could CONSIDER spending even a
dollar is absurd.
But nope, we're filing promises to do ANYTHING they tell us, without a
clue what the cost will be. Once they cross that line, you have no
defense. We've already been sold, and the price wasn't a single
thing. Just a nebulous notion that if we roll over for them now, the
screwing won't be as bad next time, and that's coming from OUR side,
not them. They'll never even hint that's true. (and it isn't)
Got any links for these other places you speak of?
I learned a long time ago that providing links in an argument about
ideas merely changes the topic to attacking the source, not the topic
itself.
If I can't sell you on the idea, and you haven't already looked to see
what other arguments are out there, then you're not really interested
in any other opinions and this whole link thing is futile.
Below is a link to the latest report about CALEA and the
reclassification of Wireless Providers as information services in
case anyone is interested in reading. Page 18 and 19 make for some
interesting reading. ;-)
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pdf
--------------------------------------------
Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc
Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains
541-969-8200
--
George Rogato
Welcome to WISPA
www.wispa.org
http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
