From: Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 6b46bd4983f572d3fadbd3865bac619f6d7b78194199163701df223ccdb4069e
Message ID: <199610300805.AAA00355@krypton.chromatic.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-10-30 08:06:16 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:06:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:06:16 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: News: TIA to
Message-ID: <199610300805.AAA00355@krypton.chromatic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
From Communications Week
October 28, 1996
Issue: 635
Section: Telepath -- Top Sories
TIA TO ISSUE DRAFT WIRETAP SPECS
By Peter Cassidy
The Telecommunications Industries Association next month will issue
draft standards allowing manufacturers to make equipment that complies
with the most recent federal wiretapping law.
If and when those draft standards are ultimately approved, however,
equipment makers will still face a troubling dilemma: The U.S. Justice
Department, which in large part wrote the new law, is also the agency
that will enforce it.
President Clinton signed the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act in October 1994 after a last-ditch, sub-rosa lobbying
effort by the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation pushed the bill through a Senate committee.
In essence, the law says that the U.S. Attorney General will dictate
how the law will carry out its job of tapping into switches.
As of October 1998, manufacturers will have to build their switches to
meet the industry specs, and carriers will have to maintain the
switches accordingly.
Switches in place before Jan. 1, 1995, are nominally exempted from
compliance. Modifications intended to fulfill the capabilities the
Justice Department mandates will be required only if companies are
reimbursed for the changes-the exception being equipment that has been
"substantially" modified.
Despite these protections, concern persists: Because many of the
technical features in place before the January 1995 cutoff will have
been updated in some way, conflicts with the Justice Department may
ensue over whether to consider them "pre-existing" technologies under
the law.
And companies on the losing end will suffer major penalties: The law
specifies that the FBI can define which companies are not in
compliance and bring civil actions against them, with fines of up to
$10,000 per violation.
Accordingly, the ambiguity in the legislative language could end up as
costly both for modifications that are not reimbursed and for court
challenges.
"What is not really addressed is what 'a significant upgrade' really
means," said Dan Bart, standards and technology vice president at the
TIA. "Ultimately, some test case will come and some judge will make
the final decision."
Given the relationship between the industry and Justice over
wiretapping capability thus far, a court challenge hardly seems
far-fetched. In fact the act was proposed only after the FBI and
telecom industry groups wrangled for years in consultative
committees. The FBI had argued that advanced telephony technologies
were making it difficult to wiretap and capture call data. Finally,
the agency turned to a legislative solution.
The TIA's draft standards, due to be issued next month by the group's
TR 45.2 committee, will contain the technical specifications required
to build-in the features for the Electronic Surveillance Interface
that the act defines.
Following a comment period of up to 90 days, the standards will be
placed on a ballot for a vote by committee members, said committee
chairwoman Cheryl Blum. If substantial changes are made to the draft
during the comment period, the standards may have to go back to the
committee, she noted.
Cellular data removed
At a standards meeting last month, the committee removed language that
would have defined a standard for forwarding the location data of
cellular phones when the instrument is powered up-but not actively
transmitting and receiving-information the FBI indicated it should
have if available.
Ms. Blum said the committee decided such a capability exceeds the
requirements of the the act. This point is important because, under
the law, companies are reimbursed only for those modifications of
existing technologies expressly spelled out in the act.
Clearly, the FBI holds the whip, even in this standards-making
process. Should the standards be found deficient under the law, the
FCC can step in and replace those standards with its own.
Justice is the most visible proponent, but the act is also of great
interest to the NSA, which introduces a potentially troubling level of
complexity as the industry attempts to comply with the law.
Commerce Department memos obtained by Telepath show that the NSA was
involved in sculpting the language of the act as far back as 1992.
A Senate committee staff attorney, now in private industry, told
Telepath that the NSA's interest was that the act introduce the
opportunity to build wiretap access points into switches outside the
United States.
Equipment built to specifications in this country-and by offshore
manufacturers for the U.S. market-would thus find its way into
foreign telephone networks, allowing the NSA a simpler means to tap
into targeted subjects.
What liabilities this introduces to equipment makers remains unclear,
as these are the early days of the act-the first law to give the
government the power to demand design changes in telephony
technologies.
Peter Cassidy is a freelance writer. Send your reactions to this
article to telepath@cmp.com.
Return to October 1996
Return to “Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com>”
1996-10-30 (Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:06:16 -0800 (PST)) - News: TIA to - Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com>