In message <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406191533030.384@clifden.donelan.com>, Sean Donelan writes:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
There's a lot more to it than that -- there's also access without involving telco personnel, and possibly the ability to do many more wiretaps (have you looked at the capacity requirements lately), but funding is certainly a large part of it. From Section (e) of http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2518.html :
Any provider of wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian or other person furnishing such facilities or technical assistance shall be compensated therefor by the applicant for reasonable expenses incurred in providing such facilities or assistance.
That is not part of CALEA.
I know; that's precisely my point. (CALEA is 18 USC 2522, I believe.) The passage I quoted is from the older wiretap law -- and it requires the government to pick up the costs. As you note below, that cost was shifted by CALEA.
Carriers found to be covered by CALEA must provide certain capabilities to law enforcement. For telecommunication equipment, facilities or services deployed after January 1 1995 the carrier must pay all reasonable costs to provide the capabilities.
The capacity requirements are interesting. In some cases, the carrier is required to have more law enforcement tapping capacity than customer capacity. The government sets the capacit requirements without any regard for the cost of maintaining the capacity. If there are multiple competitive carriers in the same area, all of the carriers must have the same capacity. If you have a single customer in Los Angeles, you must provide the capacity for at least 1,360 simultaneous interceptions. How many SPAN ports do you have?
As I mentioned, the wiretap acts and CALEA are really independent.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb