At 12:13 PM 10/10/2001, William Allen Simpson wrote: >Unlike CALEA, there are no provisions for reimbursing ISPs for these >expenses -- tens of thousands of dollars could bankrupt many ISPs. >This is an attack on both civil liberties and small business.
I agree that our legislators are not technologists. That said, what you report here isn't what I heard: Said report on HR 2795, to whit: >The text is at http://thomas.loc.gov/ The current version at Thomas does >not include the amendments. > >The following amendment caught my eye. It isn't clear what its affect >would be on our CALEA efforts: >---------------------------- >No Technology Mandates >10/3. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) offered an amendment at the House Judiciary >Committee's mark up of the PATRIOT Act on October 3, which was adopted by >a unanimous voice vote. The amendment prevents the government from >requiring ISPs or other service providers to modify their equipment or >services under the PATRIOT Act. The amendment was cosponsored by Rep. Bob >Goodlatte (R-VA) and Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT). > >The amendment states as follows: "Insert at the end of Title I the >following. Section ___: Clarification of No Technology Mandates. Nothing >in this Act shall impose any additional technical obligation or >requirement on a provider of wire or electronic communication service or >other person to furnish facilities, services or technical assistance." > >There was nothing in the bill which required service providers to furnish >any facilities or services to the government. Reps. Goodlatte and Boucher >both explained their reasons for offering this amendment. They are >concerned about the history of the Communications Assistance for Law >Enforcement Act (CALEA). Congress passed this Act in 1994 to enable law >enforcement authorities to maintain their existing wiretap capabilities in >new telecommunications devices. The Congress had cell phones in mind. It >provides that wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers must make >their equipment capable of certain surveillance functions. However, the >FBI has since sought an implementation of CALEA that expands surveillance >capabilities beyond those provided in the statute. Moreover, the FCC, >which has written implementing rules, has largely backed the FBI. This has >imposed considerable burdens and costs upon service providers, and their >customers. > >-----------------------------------------
