On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:31:56 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote > Mark, > > wispa wrote: > > I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that > > this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC, where > > it's attempting to write law instead of Congress. > > > > It's a mess, because it's NOT LAW, only Congress can write law and it has yet > > to write a law that says we have to do squat. > > > Did you even bother to read the press release mentioned in your > recent post? > > http://www.askcalea.com/docs/20040317.fbi.release.pdf > > As quoted from the press release mentioned above; > > "Congress enacted CALEA in 1994 to help the nation's law enforcement > community maintain its ability to use court-authorized electronic > surveillance as an important investigative tool in an era of new > telecommunications technologies and services. Today, electronic > surveillance plays a vitally important role in law enforcement's > ability to ensure national security and public safety." > > Also quoted from the same press release; > > "Specifically, the petition requests the FCC establish rules that > formally identify services and entities covered by CALEA, so both > law enforcement and industry are on notice with respect to CALEA > obligations and compliance. The petition makes this request because > disagreements continue between industry and law enforcement over > whether certain services are subject to CALEA. The petition requests [WINDOWS-1252?]> the FCC find broadband access and broadband telephony to be > subject to CALEA."
Ok... here's an old joke. What's the difference between dogs and cats? The dog looks at you and says "you give me everything, provide me with home, care, medicine, food, take care of all my needs... You must be a god!". The cat looks at you and says "you give me everything, provide me with home, care, medicine, food, take care of all my needs... I must be a god!". We're saying EXACTLY the same thing, but the perspective is different. Read up on CALEA itself. There's absolutely NOTHING in it that even remotely addresses ISP's. It addresses TAPPING TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS. Nothing else. It is VERY specific. When it was written, broadband didn't even EXIST, how COULD they have written a law that applies to it? It's as if Congress wrote a law that regulates the maintenance schedules on trains. Along comes OSHA, and demands that the DOT rule that the law must apply to trucking, as well, even though the whole concept is absurd. Congress knew it would NEVER get away with just wholesale handing it's shopping list of demands to industry for changes in the way it's equipment worked, and making industry PAY for it. Duhhh. That would never have made it past... well... even a kangaroo court. And the telcos would have fought it, collectively, with all thier legal muscle. Over the years, the FCC has (correctly) and and consistently insisted we are NOT "telecommunications services" or providers. Now, it suddenly says we ARE, but only for purposes of CALEA. Ohhh, could you park that decision on anything closer to what resembles vapor? I doubt it. Even worse, since the law didn't apply to us, it doesn't pay for what it OBVIOUSLY has to pay for. The FCC cannot just spend money, Congress has to do that. So, along comes the FCC and says WE have to pay for it. I've said this before, I'll say it again, the FCC threw in the most egregious demands they could think of (like requiring us to pay for it), in order to ensure this would LOSE in a legal challenge, since they weren't inclined to continue arguing with the FBI and DOJ. So, instead of defending what was defensible, they sidestepped and tossed the mess in our laps, and we're just sitting here taking it without so much as a word of protest. Gee, we must look like real shmucks to them by now. EVERYONE fights or at least ARGUES back when they do stuff... well, except for us. We beat on our own people for objecting. MAn, READ THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON EVERYTHING THE FCC DOES! Fear to tell them they're wrong? Heck no, they say it every possible way they can think of! Had Congress tried CALEA without paying for it initially, the fight would have been HUGE, CALEA would have been tossed out in court on very firm ground I am sure. The FCC doesn't write law. It can't. The DOJ and FBI have NO END TO THE LIST OF DEMANDS, their wishes are infinitely long. But just because they WANT it doesn't mean they get it, at our expense. You and I pay taxes, so that when the government wants something, it has to debate, vote, and pony up and pay in the public budget for it. If we, the people, were not protected by the Constitution, the police would just stop us and demand we fill their car with gas, buy them new tires, tune it up, repaint their cars, use OUR building for their office, provide them internet for free, the list goes on and on and on. After all, we have to have cops and they have to catch the bad guys, right? If that last sentence (which EVERYONE who is defending this FCC ruling is citing almost verbatim) were justified, then all the nonsense preceding it would be too. I stand on VERY firm ground with this. I found numerous examples of industry commentators, industry executives, legal analysis and so on, which was published a few years back, already reading the writing on the wall and wondering why the lawsuits weren't flying. Do the finding. These opinions are not some radical eastern Oregon's WISP's lone thoughts. I found them published starting in the mid 90's forward in a wide array of places. Just because DOJ wants something, or the FBI wants something, doesn't mean they have ANY right to it at our individual expense. If it costs a single dollar, then we have both the right and OBLIGATION to demand that Congress write the law, vote to spend the money for them to have it. The telcos spent big time to protect this principle back in the 90's, by ensuring the regulators that an unfunded mandate would NOT fly with them. They won. We're undoing 100% of that and setting the precedent that whatever the DOJ and FBI want, with the concurrence of the FCC, we're going to give them, period. Don't think it stops with this. The list WILL grow, and we have all but completely discredited our own defense by failing to object ALL ALONG. Once the deadline for implementation passes and we fail to object to having to spend even a single dollar, we're sunk. We will have given them the green light for ANYTHING they want, and they WILL come and take it. Once we've accepted it without objection, the next time will require a whole busload of lawyers. Since we did not object collectivley, that burden will then fall on us individually, and not a single one of us has the SLIGHTEST ability to change their minds or influnce the course of the federal government. Nor have any of us the money to hire the busload of lawyers, either. The government already has them, because it expects us to fight back. The fact that even a single one of you could CONSIDER spending even a dollar is absurd. But nope, we're filing promises to do ANYTHING they tell us, without a clue what the cost will be. Once they cross that line, you have no defense. We've already been sold, and the price wasn't a single thing. Just a nebulous notion that if we roll over for them now, the screwing won't be as bad next time, and that's coming from OUR side, not them. They'll never even hint that's true. (and it isn't) > > Got any links for these other places you speak of? I learned a long time ago that providing links in an argument about ideas merely changes the topic to attacking the source, not the topic itself. If I can't sell you on the idea, and you haven't already looked to see what other arguments are out there, then you're not really interested in any other opinions and this whole link thing is futile. > > Below is a link to the latest report about CALEA and the > reclassification of Wireless Providers as information services in > case anyone is interested in reading. Page 18 and 19 make for some > interesting reading. ;-) > > http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pdf -------------------------------------------- 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/
