Re: S.2281 Hearing (was: Justice Dept: Wiretaps...)

[Henry Linneweh <hrlinneweh () sbcglobal net>]

if the pro-ported bad guys are so swift why would they
use anything packaged anyway?

They have engineers and scientific minds in their
ranks that understand devices, boards and the likes
and could simply create their own data centers and
simply use new protocols to communicate over the
public
lines and not one person would know the difference,
all
the laws in the world would not stop them, since US
law
doesn't apply to anyone but US citizens and most other
nations could care less about what we imagine,
contrive and go into hysterics about.

-Henry

--- John Curran <jcurran () istaff org> wrote:
> At 12:06 AM -0400 6/20/04, Sean Donelan wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, John Curran wrote:
> > > S.2281 takes the middle of the road position in
> areas such as lawful
> > > intercept, universal service fund, and E911.   At
> a high-level, those
> > > VoIP services which offer PSTN interconnection
> (and thereby look like
> > > traditional phone service in terms of
> capabilities) under S.2281 pick up
> > > the same regulatory requirements.
> >
> > It sounds good, if you assume there will always be
> a PSTN.  But its
> > like defining the Internet in terms of connecting
> to the ARPANET.
>
> Correct.  It's a workable interim measure to
> continue today's practice
> while the edge network is transitioning to VoIP.  It
> does not address
> the more colorful long-term situation that law
> enforcement will be in
> shortly with abundant, ad-hoc, encrypted p2p
> communications.
>
> > What about Nextel's phone-to-phone talk feature
> which doesn't touch
> > the PSTN?  What about carriers who offer "Free"
> on-net calling, which
> > doesn't connect to the PSTN and off-net calling to
> customers on the
> > PSTN or other carriers.
> >
> > Will the bad guys follow the law, and only conduct
> their criminal
> > activities over services connected to the PSTN?
>
> Sean - what alternative position do you propose?
> /John