RE: [WISPA] Calea - how to reach Ken
Ken never called me back and here is one big deadline today, anyone know how to call him? Forbes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of wispa Sent: Mon 3/12/2007 10:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ? On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:07:33 -0400, Rick Smith wrote Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to provide ? I.e. data format, etc. - It was my impression that this was still under discussion at the FBI... There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for something or other. As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program something to use it. Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE. http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html Please note, there is no entry for ISP's here. That's because CALEA compliance requirement is merely a reversal of opinion by the FCC less than 12 months ago - May 2006. If you dig into CALEA deeper, you find a requirement for all (switching) equipment vendors to be compliant. Technically, this requires all WISP equipment vendors to be compliant, too. That would mean that Trango, Deliberant, Motorola, Alvarion, etc, would all have to build CALEA compliance into thier equipment if they, in any way, do any data routing or manipulation. SBC / Linux based equipment cannot be made compliant until someone pays the licensing and writes the closed source application, and then we all buy it. Potentially, this could raise the price of WISP gear a lot. Frankly, the more I read this, the more I am convinced that if this industry is to survive this absolutely IDIOTIC nonsense, we're going to have to go back to Washington DC and tell them THERE IS NO WAY we can conform to laws written for the telco. The language is wrong, it doesn't translate, the standards are wrong, they don't hold, it's like demanding that the railroads conform to airline laws, or vice versa. The FCC is just making this crap up as they go, CALEA has no provisions that make the slightest bit of sense for ISP's, and we need to tell them this in clear and unmistakeable terms. Frankly, I'm all for WISPA, Part-15 and whoever else, polling the members for a consensus that says we officially tell the FCC to reverse their decision, and that must go back to Congress, and get laws written to cover us, AND MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, or we'll just refuse. At the prospect of having 500, 1000, or 3000 ISP's refuse, and absolutely NOT having the means of taking down (much less withstand the public outcry) everyone, they'll be forced to do the right thing. Further, someone needs to educate them, that this kind of intercept is NOT, and I mean, NOT necessarily going to provide them squat. For almost no effort, anyone can obfuscate the data going through a TCP/IP connection, and you will NOT capture anything useful. VPN's can be encrypted and even a VOIP call through it would be untraceable, untrackable, undecipherable, and I'll bet that even the FBI cannot break many encryption methods in use today. Further, it's relatively trivial to multi-home your data transfers, which means you won't get what you think you're after, and the subject's data will be incomplete. CALEA made sense for law enforcement purposes for the telcos, but it's woefully out of data and the notion of alligator clip type listening device tap for internet based communications is sadly ridiculous. unfortunately, that's what they're trying to do. CALEA envisioned restoring the simplistic voice recording that used to happen when we had simple copper wires carrying sound across them in analog form. CALEA was the response to switching and telcos transporting that voice digital. That was deemed adequate for CALEA from 1994 to 2002 when the FCC suddenly said that CELL phones had to comply. Gee, they existed when CALEA was written. They think that they can just expand the notion of the 'tap' to a technology light years away from what CALEA applies to as written. It cannot be done without re-writing the rules of networking, the internet, and the public's freedom to communicate, as well. We as an industry owe it to ourselves and we, as citizens, owe it to our country to JUST SAY NO!. It's bad governance, bad business, bad misuse of technology...not to mention, just plain wrong for them to take on an impossible task, and require US to foot the bill for their experimenting. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ winmail.dat-- WISPA Wireless List:
RE: [WISPA] Calea - how to reach Ken
Ken who? Kris Twomey? His email is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone number can be found on his website. http://www.lokt.net/ Respectfully, Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forbes Mercy Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 2:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Calea - how to reach Ken Ken never called me back and here is one big deadline today, anyone know how to call him? Forbes _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of wispa Sent: Mon 3/12/2007 10:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ? On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:07:33 -0400, Rick Smith wrote Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to provide ? I.e. data format, etc. - It was my impression that this was still under discussion at the FBI... There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for something or other. As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program something to use it. Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE. http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html Please note, there is no entry for ISP's here. That's because CALEA compliance requirement is merely a reversal of opinion by the FCC less than 12 months ago - May 2006. If you dig into CALEA deeper, you find a requirement for all (switching) equipment vendors to be compliant. Technically, this requires all WISP equipment vendors to be compliant, too. That would mean that Trango, Deliberant, Motorola, Alvarion, etc, would all have to build CALEA compliance into thier equipment if they, in any way, do any data routing or manipulation. SBC / Linux based equipment cannot be made compliant until someone pays the licensing and writes the closed source application, and then we all buy it. Potentially, this could raise the price of WISP gear a lot. Frankly, the more I read this, the more I am convinced that if this industry is to survive this absolutely IDIOTIC nonsense, we're going to have to go back to Washington DC and tell them THERE IS NO WAY we can conform to laws written for the telco. The language is wrong, it doesn't translate, the standards are wrong, they don't hold, it's like demanding that the railroads conform to airline laws, or vice versa. The FCC is just making this crap up as they go, CALEA has no provisions that make the slightest bit of sense for ISP's, and we need to tell them this in clear and unmistakeable terms. Frankly, I'm all for WISPA, Part-15 and whoever else, polling the members for a consensus that says we officially tell the FCC to reverse their decision, and that must go back to Congress, and get laws written to cover us, AND MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, or we'll just refuse. At the prospect of having 500, 1000, or 3000 ISP's refuse, and absolutely NOT having the means of taking down (much less withstand the public outcry) everyone, they'll be forced to do the right thing. Further, someone needs to educate them, that this kind of intercept is NOT, and I mean, NOT necessarily going to provide them squat. For almost no effort, anyone can obfuscate the data going through a TCP/IP connection, and you will NOT capture anything useful. VPN's can be encrypted and even a VOIP call through it would be untraceable, untrackable, undecipherable, and I'll bet that even the FBI cannot break many encryption methods in use today. Further, it's relatively trivial to multi-home your data transfers, which means you won't get what you think you're after, and the subject's data will be incomplete. CALEA made sense for law enforcement purposes for the telcos, but it's woefully out of data and the notion of alligator clip type listening device tap for internet based communications is sadly ridiculous. unfortunately, that's what they're trying to do. CALEA envisioned restoring the simplistic voice recording that used to happen when we had simple copper wires carrying sound across them in analog form. CALEA was the response to switching and telcos transporting that voice digital. That was deemed adequate for CALEA from 1994 to 2002 when the FCC suddenly said that CELL phones had to comply. Gee, they existed when CALEA was written. They think that they can just expand the notion of the 'tap' to a technology light years away from what CALEA applies to as written. It cannot be done without re-writing the rules of networking, the internet, and the public's freedom to communicate, as well. We as an industry owe it to ourselves and we, as citizens, owe it to our country to JUST SAY NO!. It's bad governance, bad business, bad misuse of technology...not to mention, just plain wrong for them to take on an impossible task, and require US to foot the bill for their experimenting. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo
