Hi Ross,
To your point below, it was actually the FBI's (and other law
enforcement agencies(LEAs)) inability to do just what you describe that
precipitated expanding CALEA to facilitates based broadband and
interconnected VOIP providers.
To date, every time law enforcement has shown up at one of our clients'
doors, the intercept had to be handled on an individual case basis
(ICB). Now if you think about the variety of broadband offerings (DSL,
Cable, Fiber, Wireless, Satellite, Broadband over Power Lines, etc), the
endless possible backbone configurations and vendor equipment choices,
and then factor in the complexity and mobility of VOIP offerings from
Skype to Vonnage, ect, you end-up with a situation where no one LEA can
have a 'magic box' that they can drop into every environment that:
1.) collects evidence in a legally admissible manner
2.) protects the privacy of users that aren't targeted
Because of this it isn't possible for the LEA to quickly get a intercept
up and running in many environments and in time sensitive situations
such as an Amber Alert or public safety emergency (i.e. - terrorism),
this can be a serious impediment.
You also have to remember that Law Enforcement's primary focus is Law
Enforcement and not developing technology. The FBI/DEA/DOJ said as much
when in 2004 they petitioned the FCC to expand CALEA to broadband and
VoIP. Essentially, they argued that it isn't possible for them to keep
up with the pace of technology. (By the way, this isn't an ability
issue, the FBI and Secret Service, ect. have exceptionally talented
teams. Instead it really is a resource issue; the number of staff they
have to cover these issues can't cover the scale of the problem.)
As a result of the FBI/DEA/DOJ request, the FCC posted a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in August of 2004 seeking comment from all
effected parties (industry, consumers, and law enforcement). In August
of 2005 the FCC Released the First Report and Order and Further NPRM
that outlined some of the FCC's ruling sought further comment on certain
aspects the ruling. In May of 2006 the FCC's Second Order and Report on
this issue finalized the expansion of CALEA to facilities based
broadband providers and interconnected VoIP providers. Shortly
thereafter in June 2006, the DC circuit court of appeals upheld FCC's
CALEA Broadband Order in American Council on Education vs. FCC.
Hope this helps.
Tim Kery
BearHill Security, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 09:40:06 -0500
From: "Ross Cornett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
I still would like to know the amount of incident that this CALEA will
cause for all of its costs to our industry. Did anyone ask the FBI, why
they cannot have several machines and deliver them as needed
pre-configured then we can install them when they are needed. It is
highly unreasonable for the FBI to ask everyone to have a utility and
manage this utility when it will never be used by a very large portion
of our industry. It is far cheaper for the government to sameday ship
their device to us anywhere in the nation then it is to have everyone
else trying to scramble to satisfy a need that will largely be an
expensive dust collector in most businesses.
Anyone know if this has been posed to the FBI.
<http://www.bearhill.com/>
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
