nanog mailing list archives
Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists]
From: Daniel Golding <dgolding () burtongroup com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:44:50 -0400
On 6/18/04 3:30 PM, "Scott Weeks" <surfer () mauigateway com> wrote:
{snip}
Anyone know yet if they've they said who would have to pay for it, and what they specifically mean by "broadband Internet providers"? scott
Well, that's the issue, now isn't it. It all comes down to money and control. There are three schools of thought here. One is that the VoIP should not be wiretapped at all. This seems a little unrealistic considering that we allow other calls to be tapped. The second school is that VoIP calls should be made no easier or harder to tap than the technology itself warrants through its natural evolution. The FBI or whomever would just have to learn how to work with it as it evolves. The third school of thought is that all VoIP boxes should come with a red rj45 that says "FBI use only" and a big red button to start the data flowing to said jack. Pickering and the FBI are asking for the third option. Some technologists and civil libertarians seem to be advocating the first option. These might be negotiating tactics rather than honest positions - welcome to Washington. The amount of money the FBI would need to spend to tap a VoIP call is highest with the first option, intermediate with the second, and lowest with the last. Some services companies are really salivating for the chance to add CALEA hardware to VoIP networks. I won't mention any particular companies here, as they have taken a recent beating on this list. Piling on seems rather cruel. The second option is probably the most sensible. We'll see how far sensible gets in the halls of Congress. I suggest crossing fingers, now. -- Daniel Golding Network and Telecommunications Strategies Burton Group
Current thread:
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists], (continued)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Jeff Shultz (Jun 18)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Daniel Golding (Jun 18)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Randy Bush (Jun 18)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Jeff Shultz (Jun 18)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Randy Bush (Jun 18)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Jeff Shultz (Jun 18)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Scott Francis (Jun 18)
- Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] Randy Bush (Jun 18)
- 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] 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)