On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 22:16:38 -0600, Dave Brenton wrote > Folks, > > I do not want to rant or in anyway fan flames here, > > but I Do want to ask the question: > > What are the "Big Kids" doing about CALEA and the > > talk seeping out, about data monitoring / logging from DOJ? > > Earthlink, AOL (and it's clones), MSN, AT&T?
Well, let's see... AOL proxies almost all traffic now, so spying on customers is normal operations... But levity aside, would solutions that cost them even a million or two really impact their budget? No, but it would sure weed out some competition for them, wouldn't it? I've been looking for info on how these people have responded, and to be honest, I don't think they have, at least not publicly. I have read two op- ed bits in industry sites expressing how they should have, but appear to have simply gone along without objection. Did any of them get money from the fund for compliance? Especially, say, Qwest or AT&T? > > Are those guys on the sidelines just waiting for the > > shoe to drop, or busily building the mega-cache systems > > needed to transcribe every last packet passed over their > > networks? > > Somehow is seems unlikely. AOL proxies darn near everything, as far as I can tell, so that's sort of a moot point, they really can cache any customer's data probably with almost no effort. > > I don't see how, just because we are small and independent, > > we have anymore to fear about the implications of these > > seemingly invasive measures. If anything it would seem > > we have much less to fear, since the shear volume of data > > from traffic logging would render it almost useless. hold on, we're required to intercept specific user's data. We're supposed to separate that data from the rest and supply it alone, not just everything in a big bucket and let them sort out the packets. > > Frankly I don't (with my admittedly limited understanding > > of the true nature of IP traffic) understand what is to prevent > > these "traffic loggers" or other data traps to be inserted > > anywhere on the much-fewer backbone transports and > > be done with it. Well, if you consider how interconnected many ISP's are, then you have to realize that one customer's data could be routed a whole host of directions at the same time, and a single or even mutiple backbone taps would not likely intercept it in a coordinated fashion. > > (In truth I highly doubt that this has not in fact already been > done). > > At any rate EFF.org and others are our best allies in trying > > to tame this dragon before it bites. I too, have profound concerns > > about the right-to-privacy (as if any of us has had that for years). > > But the more important issue is the FACT that the COSTS of any and > > all monitoring MUST, in view of the 13th Amendment, be borne > > by the AGENCY that wants the information, NOT US. I believe the notion of forcing us to pay for what they want is called "taking". You can find some scant discussion of that with Google, as it applies to ISP's and CALEA. > > For those who have forgotten, the 13th Amendment abolished > > involuntary servitude. In short we CANNOT be compelled > > to work for Uncle Sam for FREE. We MAY by Court Order > > be compelled to provide access to execute a search for a > > specific duration. But we do not have to DO the search for > > them, provide them with the forensic tools to investigate, > > or in anyway become unduly financially inconvenienced, > > in the execution of the lawful activity. Well, that's exactly what CALEA demands... Not of the telcos, who got paid to do this, nor of various other carriers, who were to be compensated for the costs. Only the VOIP providers, peer to peer chat & voice, ISP's, etc, segments have suddenly been added to this and are ordered to provide it all at our own expense. > > "But Dave," (I hear you saying) "they make the phone companies > > provide information, Local Usage Details and the like > > under subpoena from the court. Why can't the do that to us?" > > Well in part they can, but remember that Telecos are those > > freaks of the business world: The Regulated Utility. > > When these Companies agreed to operate as Regulated > > Monopoly Utilities the gave up many rights and assumed > > special responsibilities that "Normal Business" don't have. > > The requirements to log usage details was long ago shown > > to be a normal part of the Telco Business flow, for their > > in-house billing and cross-billing purposes. The Courts > > asking to view selected sections of those logs for fact finding > > was viewed as duty the comes with the privilege to > > do business without competition. CALEA established a fund of hundreds of millions, which was used to compensate the phone companies and so on for expenses related to building compliance into switching mechanisms, etc. So, no, not even they were required to fund these mandates by themselves. > > I'm no attorney, nor have I played one on Television, > > but I think I have a fairly firm grip on reality. > > (Why is there Air?) <grin> > > I think we should be looking hard at what our older-bigger > > cousins in the ISP industry are doing and be prepared to join > > in with them for injunctive relief - IF we are asked to SPEND > > anything preemptively to serve the cause of law enforcement. > > We are NOT Monopoly Tel-Co s. > > Law Enforcement Agencies are in-fact the ones with > > the guns and badges, not us. > > I didn't run for Sheriff, I was not elected to the office, > > I have taken no oath of office. I am therefore NOT a law > > enforcement officer, entitled to monetary compensation. > > I WILL IN NO WAY IMPED the work of Law Enforcement > > but I cannot LEGALLY be compelled to do it FOR them > > at my own expense. Who of us have enough money to hire the lawyers to fight the federal government? > > Please Notice I am NOT discussing the value or virtue of > > the law enforcement activities - That's politics, and has nothing > > to do with the LAW or it's execution. > > So what the heck is my point? > > I Honestly believe, IF some Policy is promulgated that costs US > > money or time (which IS WORTH money) to do THEIR work, it > > WILL be held unlawful on several grounds. > > I THINK that supporting EFF or others that share our concerns > > and raising these points to them may put this dragon in a cage. > > I feel certain that the BIG KIDs are thinking this way. > > I think we should too. > > That, and thirty nickels will buy you a cup of coffee. > > Dave Brenton > Interesting thinking, Dave. Glad you took the time to write it down clearly and carefully. Let's hope people are reading. -------------------------------------------- Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
