[Clips] Broader Wiretap Rule Draws Resistance
R. A. Hettinga
rah at shipwright.com
Sun Jan 1 05:34:03 PST 2006
--- begin forwarded text
Delivered-To: clips at philodox.com
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 08:32:50 -0500
To: Philodox Clips List <clips at philodox.com>
From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah at shipwright.com>
Subject: [Clips] Broader Wiretap Rule Draws Resistance
Reply-To: rah at philodox.com
Sender: clips-bounces at philodox.com
<http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB113581972188433505.html>
The Wall Street Journal
December 29, 2005
Broader Wiretap Rule
Draws Resistance
Companies and Universities
Cite Costs if Surveillance Expands
Beyond Phone, Cable to Web
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN, AMY SCHATZ and ROBERT BLOCK
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
December 29, 2005; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- When the cable industry's research consortium's first attempt
to make its systems more compatible with FBI eavesdropping failed to win
government approval, it asked the FBI for suggestions. The industry not
only got them but implemented them fully, winning unusual public thanks
from the bureau along the way.
Today, the industry faces the prospect of having to re-engineer itself
again, due to a recent Federal Communications Commission decision extending
the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or Calea, to
Internet traffic as well as phone calls. The act, which became law in 1994,
requires companies to make it easier for the government to listen to phone
calls carried on their lines.
The cable group's efforts to craft technical standards for the government
show how U.S. corporations have helped with law enforcement. But companies
are chafing both at the cost to comply with requests and increasing demands
by government officials to have a seat at the table as engineers invent
technologies.
Susan Hackett of the Association of Corporate Counsel, which represents the
legal departments of America's biggest corporations, says many rules and
laws in place since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, such as the
Patriot Act, have grown increasingly costly in terms of compliance.
Earlier this month, 3Com Corp. told the FCC it should tightly define which
Internet phone companies fall under the 1994 law in order to strike "an
appropriate balance...between allowing innovation in the telecommunications
industry and meeting the needs of law enforcement."
Some of the loudest complaints about the expanded reach of the law have
come from universities, who say that expanding the act to cover Internet
traffic imposes a significant financial burden on them. In an FCC filing
last year, a coalition of higher-education groups -- including the American
Council on Education, a trade group for colleges and universities -- argued
that such a decision would force them "substantially to replace existing
network facilities well before their useful life has expired." The groups
warned that replacing the equipment would cost billions of dollars, forcing
an "increase in tuition (which may be as high as several hundred dollars
per student), cancellation of some educational programs, and a delay in
other network improvements necessary for educational and research
objectives."
One indication that business's patience is wearing thin is resistance to
the Justice Department's push to expand the act to cover Internet phones
and broadband services. Federal law-enforcement officials are concerned
about terrorists switching to the new systems to bypass traditional phone
networks that have wiretapping-friendly technology. In August the FCC
agreed and said companies that provide Internet calling that looks and
feels like traditional phone service must comply with the 1994 law in 18
months. Universities, libraries and municipalities that offer Internet
service would also fall under the law, the FCC said. That decision prompted
telecom companies and Internet-software companies to protest the rule and
civil-liberties groups to file a challenge in federal court.
Now, the political fight over the administration's secret program to
eavesdrop on terrorism suspects is almost certain to heighten the dispute.
"We already see the creep of Calea, and the Justice Department is making it
crystal clear that they want to apply it to all Internet applications
eventually," says John Morris, a staff attorney for the Center for
Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit civil-liberties group that is leading
a challenge to the FCC's August ruling.
Mr. Morris says his group accepts that Internet traffic can sometimes
legally be tapped, but believes the act doesn't give the Federal Bureau of
Investigation or Justice Department the authority to impose costly
technical mandates on corporations and private organizations.
Public opinion appears to be divided on what trade-offs are acceptable
between national security and civil liberties. In a poll to be released
today by Ponemon Institute, a privacy-focused research organization, 88% of
respondents said they were concerned about domestic spying and 63% felt
that obtaining court orders wouldn't hinder the government's pursuit of
terrorists. At the same time, those polled were evenly divided about
whether the Bush administration can be trusted to take reasonable steps to
protect civil liberties.
For the telecom industry, the choice has generally been clearer. The
industry is heavily regulated, and its future can depend on FCC regulators
and lawmakers.
The 1994 law, for instance, was crafted to require companies to work with
the government to design backdoors into their systems to help
law-enforcement officials more easily set up surveillance systems. It was
passed to address concerns that new technologies, like cellphones, made it
more difficult to conduct surveillance, and companies weren't responding to
those concerns. Phone calls carried on analog lines aren't difficult for
the government to tap; the phrase "wiretapping" comes from the practice of
placing metal clips on analog wires to listen in to conversations. But as
analog lines began to be replaced with digital-switching systems,
intercepting calls meant plucking packets of information out of a
datastream and then reassembling them to learn who was making or receiving
the call and what was being said.
The legislation generally left the Internet alone and put the burden on
industry to design systems that were wiretap-friendly.
FBI officials objected to the first designs by CableLabs, a
research-and-development consortium representing cable-TV operators, saying
the proposed engineering guidelines didn't go far enough. CableLabs asked
the FBI to detail its concerns and preferences, and then released new
technical specifications throughout 2003 and 2004 that incorporated FBI
suggestions on how to increase the bureau's ability to tap phone calls
carried on cable lines.
In January 2004 the most-recent version was released, and an FBI assistant
director, Kerry Haynes, praised it at the time as "an extraordinary example
of law enforcement and industry collaboration in the public interest,"
singling out large cable operators such as Time Warner Inc. and Comcast
Corp. for "special recognition and appreciation."
CableLabs officials say the government involvement forced them to balance
consumer interests and law-enforcement demands. "You have to do both," says
Richard Green, the president and chief executive of CableLabs. "Our
obligation to our customers is very important, but the needs of law
enforcement are very important to us, too. We tried to walk a line between
the two."
Mr. Green notes that the act left the industry little choice but to comply.
"There is a law, and as service providers we have to abide by it," he says.
The cable industry has been more willing than others to accept the
government's attempt to expand the 1994 law into newer-generation
technologies like Internet telephone and broadband services, mostly because
cable operators had already adopted wiretap-friendly specifications under
separate federal requirements.
In August the FCC said most Internet phone and broadband Internet-service
providers were covered under the act because they essentially replaced
older services, like dial-up Internet, which were subject to the law. FCC
Chairman Kevin Martin said that while he believed "new technologies and
services should operate free of economic regulation, I also believe that
law-enforcement agencies must have the ability to conduct lawful electronic
surveillance over these new technologies."
The Justice Department wants the FCC to go further, saying the law should
cover any Internet phone service, including companies such as Skype
Technologies SA, which is being acquired by eBay Inc. and which offers
computer-to-computer and computer-to-phone Internet calling.
Internet companies, universities, libraries and other providers were given
until spring of 2007 to reconfigure their networks to comply with the rule.
But the FCC didn't give them any idea about what they would have to do to
comply. Since then, dozens of universities, libraries and Internet
companies have filed objections to the rules, asking for more time before
the rules take effect, complaining about the potential cost and complexity
of compliance and urging the FCC to adopt educational exemptions.
Federal law-enforcement officials also want the FCC to give them expanded
ability to monitor phone calls and data traffic when broadband Internet
becomes available on U.S. commercial flights in the next few years.
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
_______________________________________________
Clips mailing list
Clips at philodox.com
http://www.philodox.com/mailman/listinfo/clips
--- end forwarded text
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list