[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<SNIP>
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.
For my current network setup over 95% of all traffic external to my
network appears to come from a single IP address, so this would be
unusable with my customers.
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.
This brings up an interesting point. If it is traffic between two
customers on your network, aren't you really providing a private network
and if so, doesn't this fall outside of CALEA? If that is not the case
then doesn't every private network need to be CALEA compliant?
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.
As a citizen I'm not sure I would like this. Sounds to me like asking
the fox to guard the hen house. If the warrant is for a specific type
of traffic that is all they should have access to. Again, this is my
citizen view, by no means construe this as support for CALEA regulation
of data networks.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
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/
