Thanks for clarifying this. So, I guess the real answer is, weigh the statistical loss expectancy of the (Probability of getting a CALEA claim) x (fine exposure for noncompliance) and pick the lesser of that and paying for 20x the bandwidth and 500x the equipment to actually be properly equipped to bother handling media. :-)
Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote: > On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 22:05 -0500, Alex Balashov wrote: >> That's true. But I do think these CALEA requests can be serviced by the >> upstream carriers even with LCR more often than not. >> > > yeah except that it can be much more difficult. For example acct123 > needs to have taps placed on it. However upstreams do not know which > calls are from acct123, especially if arbitrary CLID is allowed. > > Now you can stuff a sip header but afaik there is no standard header to > signal that it should be recorded. This problem is solved for mobile > phone providers who have roaming agreements, were it not there would > have been some stink about this at some point in the past, and I have > not seen that happen at all. As a result there has to be a way to > signal the other party who is in a position to see the media to actually > tap it. But its more than just tapping the line, because you generally > should restrict access to who can see/set those taps, and if there are > recordings at a bunch of different providers you have to then collect > them and bundle signalling information in along with it when its handed > over. The police will need to know what time it was made, where it > went, and all of that, granted this information should also be available > to the carrier it was routed through, but that is not always the case. > > for example internet to internet calls also have to be tapable if they > are through an "interconnected voip provider". So if custA calls custB > and A is to be recorded you have to deal with the media even if it never > hits the pstn. So you cant rely on the other providers to be your sole > source of recording facilities. > > The fine is/was $10,000 per day per switch that is not capable, it will > not have gone down that is just not how the government works, but it may > have gone up. The cost of getting hit just one time for that can be > substantial. > > >> Would disabling LCR and forcing the route to one of the carriers you >> normally use that will do the CALEA tapping for you be considered >> "tipping off" the customer being recorded? >> > > so far I have not seen a single case on this, so the answer would have > to be a resounding "who knows". Its a gamble if you change parameters > when the taps are on from what they are when they arent. At some point > someone will detect the tap, or publish something on how to detect it, > and the government will start to take an interest in this and if they > blow a big case that was supposed to lead towards a promotion for some > of the agents guess who they will take it out on? > > > > >> If so, it seems CALEA sets an impossibly high standard from a >> philosophical perspective. What if you just changed your business rules >> and dropped your other carriers? >> > > it is a 1984 or so law, and was written for traditional telephone > companies and only recently applied to the "interconnected VoIP > providers". Because the application was made without a statute change > allowing it (the FCC using its legislative powers in violation of the > separation of powers doctrine in the constitution) the statute is still > written as if everything operates the way telephones worked in the > 1980s. > > As a result newer technologies that do things different can be tricky to > deal with. > > The biggest reason that this, the 911 stuff and the USF stuff happened > is that the FCC realized that it was losing power, so it sought to > expand its power by roping in as many VoIP providers as possible. CALEA > was the last of the changes if I recall correctly, and I expect more in > the future basically trying to gain as much control over the internet as > possible. The FCC (and federal government in general) does not like the > fact that they cant just control everything and have even proposed some > legislation not that long ago that totally violated the 10th amendment > saying that the states had almost no rights to regulate many things on > the internet, television, and other things, fortunately that did not > pass. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- > > asterisk-biz mailing list > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775 _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
