nanog mailing list archives
Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists]
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 01:48:57 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I'm told that most CALEA warrants only authorize a pen register, not an
CALEA and wiretaps are independent subjects. You can have CALEA obligations even if you never, ever implement a single wiretap. On the other hand you may need to implement many wiretaps even though you have no CALEA obligations. For example, hotels and universities have traditionally been considered not to have CALEA obligations. However, both hotels and universities must comply with court orders if law enforcement wants to wiretap one of their phones. Should CALEA be extended to hotels and universities? Are hotels and universities broadband Internet providers when they offer Internet service in student dorm rooms or hotel rooms? In reality, CALEA is a funding bill; it has very little to do with technology. Imagine if law enforcement thought DNA testing was too expensive, so Congress passes a law requiring all doctors to purchase DNA testing equipment and provide free DNA tests to law enforcement. DNA is a complicated subject. Few police officers are qualified to analyze DNA. Instead law enforcement pays for professional DNA testing when it needs DNA testing. The FCC comment period has closed. Everyone had an opportunity to submit comments on the topic to the FCC. Consult your own attorney if you want real legal advice.
Current thread:
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists], (continued)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Scott Francis (Jun 18)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Niels Bakker (Jun 19)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Stephen Sprunk (Jun 19)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Daniel Golding (Jun 18)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] John Curran (Jun 18)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Stephen Sprunk (Jun 18)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Christopher L. Morrow (Jun 18)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Rob Nelson (Jun 18)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Stephen Sprunk (Jun 18)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] David Lesher (Jun 18)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Sean Donelan (Jun 18)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Steven M. Bellovin (Jun 19)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] David Lesher (Jun 19)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Sean Donelan (Jun 19)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Steven M. Bellovin (Jun 20)
- Re: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists Hank Nussbacher (Jun 19)
- Broadband? Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Stephen J. Wilcox (Jun 19)
- Re: Broadband? Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jun 19)