The US Government is trying to force ISPs to re-configure their
systems to allow agencies to snoop on email and internet traffic.
The relevant laws demand that phone providers allow such
eavesdropping on voice calls, but the Government and the companies
dispute whether or not it allows the same actions with regard to
data.
On 9th June a federal appeals court in the US ruled by 2 votes
to 1 that companies would have to change their systems. That
decision will now be appealed to the Court of Appeals in
Washington, DC.
The coalition of groups mounting the appeal includes the
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); the Electronic Privacy
Information Center; Pulver.com; Sun Microsystems, and the National
Association of College and University Business Officials.
Those organisations argue that the current systems have never
blocked law enforcement agencies finding out information that they
have needed in the past. "As far as the record on appeal reveals,
100% of attempted interceptions of internet communications to date
have been successful," says their brief in the case.
The coalition of groups opposes amendments to the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) being proposed by the US
communications regulator the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). They argue that the FCC went too far when it framed the
requirements for ISPs and argue that the FCC is demanding changes
that are outside of its legal scope.
"CALEA requires telecommunications common carriers to build
certain capabilities into their networks to facilitate wiretaps,
but expressly excludes providers of information services," argues
the coalition's brief.
The legal basis for internet wiretaps is currently in place, but
the FCC is trying to standardise the methodology used, causing
privacy concerns for those opposing it, as well as economic
concerns about the cost of rewiring systems.
"It is crucial to remember that the issue here is not whether
law enforcement can tap new technologies like VoIP, but whether
they can tap it easily," said a statement from the EFF. "Existing
laws already permit law enforcement to place internet users under
surveillance, regardless of what programs or protocols they are
using to communicate. Industry already cooperates with law
enforcement to give it all the information requested, and this will
continue to happen with or without a new FCC rule interpreting
CALEA."
The one dissenting judge who ruled in favour of the objections
in June, Harry Edwards, called the FCC's evidence in that case
"gobbledygook" and "nonsense".
