[Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists]

Sun Jun 20 15:12:38 UTC 2004

In message <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406191533030.384 at clifden.donelan.com>, 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 lately), but
>> funding is certainly a large part of it.  From Section (e) of
>> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2518.html :
>>
>> 	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 reasonable expenses incurred in providing such
>> 	facilities or assistance.
>
>That is not part of CALEA.

I know; that's precisely my point.  (CALEA is 18 USC 2522, I believe.)  
The passage I quoted is from the older wiretap law -- and it requires 
the government to pick up the costs.  As you note below, that cost was 
shifted by CALEA.
>
>Carriers found to be covered by CALEA must provide certain capabilities
>to law enforcement.  For telecommunication equipment, facilities or
>services deployed after January 1 1995 the carrier must pay all reasonable
>costs to provide the capabilities.
>
>The capacity requirements are interesting.  In some cases, the carrier is
>required to have more law enforcement tapping capacity than customer
>capacity.  The government sets the capacit requirements without any
>regard for the cost of maintaining the capacity.  If there are multiple
>competitive carriers in the same area, all of the carriers must have the
>same capacity. If you have a single customer in Los Angeles, you must
>provide the capacity for at least 1,360 simultaneous interceptions.  How
>many SPAN ports do you have?
>
>As I mentioned, the wiretap acts and CALEA are really independent.
>


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb