It seems that what we really have is mis-placed priority. Apparently it is more of an outrage to wear fur, than to target an immature industry and push it into extinction.
kudos to digg they stood firm with their constituents and re- allowed posting of the hd code crack. http://digg.com/tech_news/Why_posting_the_HD_DVD_key_could_land_webs ites_in_big_trouble kudos to the millions world wide whom have realised the real dangers of DCMA and are fighting it. I ask you guys and gals this... The traffic of interest. What are its characteristics? If it is someone trafficking illegal content to the world at large via encrypted p2p, then obviously that traffic will route and terminate via a core facility at some point. I have toured Broadwing's photonic backbone facilities and there are tap points in place for diagnostic / maintenance / LEA access purposes. That said, it's a moot point to capture traffic off your network if it such that it will ride to any of the core routers. So the focus of the traffic request must be of a more local nature in order for there to be a need to involve you as a network operator. Well, if the LEA has established that 'suspect x' (yes suspect, not guilty till proven guilty remember?) is gaining connectivity via your network, they have either determined this via financial or data capture investigatory methodology. If their concern is to tap the packets of said suspect, why not deploy a team with wireless intercept? It is not outside of their technical capacity, after all, America is the master if sigint/comint. It would NOT be very expensive in equipment nor training to present each LEA with this capacity. Then they could go intercept and sift the materials themselves. The forces at play are much more sinister I think. By placing the onus upon us as business owners, they are shirking both their financial and civil liabilities. Rest assured that the current posture of applying calea to our networks is really pretty much bunk. The very need for the tap to be local to my network means that they are interested in traffic which is both originating and terminating on my network. As such, I say that if they want the data, go park a van and intercept the frames, and do what you need to, but do so with your finances paying for it and put the legal burden and liability of such activity where it belongs... with the LEA themselves. For instance, in my area there are 5 wifi network operators. Rather than each of us operators going to the expense, why net let the 2 or 3 local LEAs purchase and train personnel to handle the intercept? Why create a regulatory burden / liability upon myself as a small operator? The LEAs should be responsible for carrying out their investigations and dealing with the determination of what information is applicable to warrant, not me. Operating as a CLEC we actually have a regulatory affairs department which handles reviewing subpoena, making determination of application, and then (after information specifics are approved) it is handed off to tech department for CDR collection, and/or tap activation and portal access activation. Its really sad to see people bashed for standing up for their rights. I am especially proud of our veterans whom have undertaken the ultimate responsibility of maintaining these rights. Civil disobedience is completely appropriate with regard to this. carry on, be proud, be free! XXX -- Click here to find single Christians that want to meet you today http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/CAaCXv1VY4cGXTnqMSKvrVGRVaGCmc8R/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
