said by datanetdude :

As for as VoIp good ole Phil should come through for us

said by Maarvin :

There is no such thing as privacy and security, and there hasn't been any for quite some time now, never to return.

said by kapil :

Nowadays, if you are anti-war, you are a traitor...what if tomorrow that is taken literally? What if in 2025, to be "typical", you have to get a barcode on your chest at birth? ...or a RFID tag? What if you are a professor at a school and publish an academic paper about the weaknesses in our homeland security plan.....and the FBI comes after you?

said by kapil :

"upstanding" to me means questioning the motives of government and make it better...but many fools consider that treason! ...who is right? ...and who gets to decide?

said by kapil :

Our law enforcement agencies follows the same logic behind the 'security by obscurity' doctrine...force everyone to bury their heads in sand and the technology will go away.

Responding to a petition from the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Agency, the FCC Commission determined that providers of certain broadband and interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services must be prepared to accommodate law enforcement wiretaps, the Federal Communications Commission ruled yesterday.

The Commission found that these services can essentially replace conventional telecommunications services currently subject to wiretap rules, including circuit-switched voice service and dial-up Internet access. As replacements, the new services are covered by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA, which requires the Commission to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct court-ordered wiretaps in the face of technological change.

The Order is limited to facilities-based broadband Internet access service providers and VoIP providers that offer services permitting users to receive calls from, and place calls to, the public switched telephone network. These VoIP providers are called interconnected VoIP providers. CALEA contains a provision that authorizes the Commission to deem an entity a telecommunications carrier if the Commission “finds that such service is a replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone exchange.”

The Order strikes an appropriate balance between fostering competitive broadband and advanced services deployment and technological innovation on one hand, and meeting the needs of the law enforcement community on the other.

said by TK Junk Mail :

»www.linuxelectrons.com/article.p···55918944
You think that's an impediment? Three-letter agencies can obtain court orders from compliant judges at the drop of a hat. You think they're ever turned down? Get real.
--
"tick...tick...tick..." »www.jtf.org/

said by MoeDumb :

And that has changed how from getting the same court order for a regular landline how?

said by calvoiper :

The real problem here is that this requires affected providers to be able to tap calls that do not touch the PSTN--this can be a big operational problem for services that offer both PSTN interconnection and calling between VOIP subscribers without interconnection to the PSTN.

The earlier notice (FCC 04-187, August, 2004) in paras. 37 to 39 had tentatively concluded CALEA applied only to "managed" VOIP, where the provider holds on to the call and acts as a continuing intermediary throughout the duration of the call. "Non-managed" or "peer-to-peer" calls, where the provider assists with setup info but then is not further involved with the call, wouldn't have been covered. This was apparently the distinction originally advanced by the law enforcement agencies.

The current notice (FCC 05-153, "adopted" in August but only finalized and released last Friday) scraps this distinction and goes instead with a model that makes ALL calls passed by a provider who offers PSTN interconnection subject to CALEA (paras. 39-40.) This expansion beyond even what law enforcement requested has two principal effects:

1. This dramatically increases the scope of the coverage--now all calls that are setup through Vonage and other "PSTN interconnected" providers are subject to CALEA, regardless of whether or not the calls themselves touch the PSTN.

2. The broader scope increases VOIP providers costs--the provider must either a) "manage" ALL calls it sets up throughout the duration of the call, thereby destroying the inherent efficiency of letting go of a call between VOIPers who can go "peer-to-peer" or b) create a separate call flow setup for CALEA-tapped calls that would otherwise be "unmanaged", moving them into the "managed" category by artificially inserting an extra pair of packet assemblers/dissamblers into the call path.

Even though the "b)" solution of an "inserted tap" on what would otherwise be a "peer-to-peer" call might seem like a minimal expense, since it would likely be easily detectable by the end user(s), it might not comply with CALEA at all, as CALEA requires the existence of a tap to be kept confidential from the subscriber.

I envision instead an end result in which "PSTN interconnected" providers end up abandoning the cheap (and likely free) "peer-to-peer" route, instead maintaining "management" of every call from start to finish. This loss of efficiency, and increased cost, for VOIP service will undoubtedly please the existing, incumbent PSTN providers.

This leaves us with a split world of VOIP--one class of providers who can deliver any call, but entirely subject to CALEA, and another class who setup "peer-to-peer" traffic only and are not subject to CALEA. Guess which ones the bad guys will use?

Call me paranoid if you wish, but I strongly suspect that the incumbent Baby Bells had more than a small part in this result which will force more VOIP traffic into more expensive call routing which just happens to mirror, in part, the historical and expensive network design of these same Baby Bells.

calvoiper

said by calvoiper :

...yes, and there were those who said that if automobiles were to replace horses, then they couldn't go any faster than horses, as well.

said by calvoiper :

Anytime you (or the government) says that to compete with some existing technology or industry, you have to mimic all of the features and aspects of that technology or industry, innovation is stifled.

said by calvoiper :

Maybe you'd enjoy seeing the US choke off innovation and lose what little leading role we have left in technology development, but I'm not yet ready to turn it all over to the bureaucrats who are both too lazy and too stupid to deal with new, innovative technology.

said by calvoiper :

This FCC Order represents a colossal failure of the regulatory bureaucracy to do anything other than effectively say, "Duh. I don't wanna tax my brain to figure out how this new stuff really works, so I'll just say it has to work just like the old stuff. And I don't care if our action today doesn't really affect terrorism much 'cause terrorists can still use the P2P flavor of the new stuff, whatever that is--it's only my job to make a decision, and we'll just do as much of it as we can the old way."
calvoiper

said by calvoiper :

VOIP developers didn't "forget a few things". They made decisions very similar to those made by cellular developers, particularly regarding 9-1-1 and customer anonymity.

The public hears daily about how "anonymous" or "disposable" cellphones are used in criminal activity, and how cellular phones have limited 9-1-1. Still, the cellular industry got around 180 months to install E-9-1-1, while VOIP is getting around 180 days, and VOIP providers are being forced to expensively expand the scope of CALEA wiretappable calls.

said by calvoiper :

The difference? The whining Baby Bells all had, and still have, a piece of the cellular action. On the other hand, they're late to the game on VOIP, and they're trying to kill it.

said by calvoiper :

At least we agree on the FCC, moonpuppy.

calvoiper

said by calvoiper :

You may see law enforcement getting instant subscriber info on "NCIS" or "CSI", but it's far from that quick in reality--and that is only subscriber info, which may have little to do with the location the call is coming from, for either cellular or VOIP. And with "prepaid" (A/K/A "disposable") cellphones, there may not be any valid subscriber info to be had.

said by calvoiper :

Yes, the original "A/B" cellular system "gave" (FOR FREE, mind you) half the spectrum to the local telcos, including the Baby Bells, and gave the other half to lottery winners. This was done because the Baby Bells had threatened to refuse PSTN connections to cellular carriers if they didn't get at least half of the pie.

The resulting comfortable duopoly kept cellular prices high (recall $49.95/mo for 20 included minutes, with additional minutes @ $0.35 and long distance for an additional $0.20, with no night/weekend discounts and NO FREE MINUTES EVER?) Prices didn't drop until NexTel challenged some markets with its cobbled-together approach and finally really got competitive when the PCS frequencies came on line (following another colossal clustermess by the FCC.)

said by calvoiper :

And as for the early testing in the '70's, I well remember using a Motorola "brickphone" prototype at a demo in 1973 on the campus of the U. of Illinois. How Motorola managed to let more than a decade pass before convincing bureaucrats to allow this technology to be deployed is the hidden story of the loss of one of the largest competitive leads in US history.

calvoiper

said by G_Poobah :

Court order? What country are you living in?
Under the patriot act, they don't need a court order. Period.

said by openbox9 :

... but how bad would it be if we had fewer journalists...and lawyers:D