Re: FCC takes steps to remove neutrality, privacy obligations from wireless broadband

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Chris Savage <ChrisSavage () dwt com>
Date: March 23, 2007 12:03:55 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: RE: [IP] Re: FCC takes steps to remove neutrality, privacy  
obligations from wireless broadband

Also, while it may be somewhat cold comfort, the FCC has ruled that
broadband internet access is subject to CALEA, and CALEA calls on
providers subject to it, to make sure that they do not give the
government communications that are not authorized to be intercepted.

I know one does not normally think of CALEA as a privacy statute, but in
these times perhaps you go with what you can...

Chris Savage | Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202-828-9811 | Mob: 202-256-5445 | Fax: 703-991-1470
Email: ChrisSavage () dwt com | Website: www.dwt.com

Anchorage | Bellevue | Los Angeles | New York | Portland | San Francisco
| Seattle | Shanghai | Washington, D.C.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 8:16 AM
> To: ip () v2 listbox com
> Subject: [IP] Re: FCC takes steps to remove neutrality, privacy
obligations
> from wireless broadband
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Peter Swire <peter () peterswire net>
> Date: March 23, 2007 7:42:52 AM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: RE: [IP] FCC takes steps to remove neutrality, privacy
> obligations from wireless broadband
>
> Dave:
>
> I think the previous post about privacy and wireless broadband is
> incomplete.
>
> The privacy rules under 47 USC 222, called the "CPNI rules," focus on
> what a carrier can do in terms of selling customer lists to other
> companies.  Think marketing-related privacy.
>
> The anti-wiretap privacy laws would still apply, however.  Under the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510, current law
> would still prohibit a phone company or the government from
> wiretapping content, unless an exception applied.
>
> There are plenty of exceptions to ECPA, and the current flap about
> National Security Letters show the even broader exceptions when it
> comes to traffic analysis (who you called/who called you).  But the
> re-classification to "information services" for wireless broadband
> wouldn't change those rules, as far as I can see.
>
> Peter
>
> Prof. Peter Swire
> C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
> Moritz College of Law of the
> Ohio State University
> Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
> (240) 994-4142, www.peterswire.net
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [IP] FCC takes steps to remove neutrality, privacy  
> obligations
> from wireless broadband
> From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Date: Thu, March 22, 2007 4:59 pm
> To: ip () v2 listbox com
>
> Begin forwarded message: From: Ethan Ackerman
> <eackerma () u washington edu> Date: March 22, 2007 2:47:07 PM EDT To:
> David Farber <dave () farber net> Subject: FCC takes steps to remove
> neutrality, privacy obligations from wireless broadband Greetings
> Dave, The FCC held a meeting today (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/
> edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271562A1.pdf) where they took the
> expected step of declaring wireless broadband service an "information
> service," effectively removing it from many of the protections it had
> in its previous classification. The press releases and media coverage
> to follow have started already (see http://www.mediaaccess.org/press/
> MAP%20Statement%20on%20Wireless% 20Ruling.pdf for an example) Most
> coverage will probably focus on the issue of "net neutrality," as
> that is one of the main issues this category change raises. It is not
> the only issue, however. Important protections within the
> Telecommunications Act turn on how a service is classified, including
> the arguably decent privacy protections afforded telecommunications
> services. By redefining the classification of wireless broadband
> service, The FCC has *probably* removed the privacy protections of
> federal law (47 USC 222) from this service. This is not little deal.
> This section is one of the main laws that the EFF sued AT&T over
> regarding NSA wiretapping. Arguably, if AT&T had been wiretapping
> broadband internet for the NSA, EFF couldn't have even sued under
> that law. (*Probably* - because we won't know for sure until the
> final order comes out. But the FCC didn't explicitly preserve these
> protections in cable broadband or DSL recategorizations, there's no
> reason to think they will now.)
> ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://
> v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/@now Powered by Listbox: http://
> www.listbox.com
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/@now
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/@now
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com