Appeals Decision in USTA vs. FCC (CALEA)

MacRonin writes: "Electronic Privacy Information Center announces the DC Circuit Decision in USTA v. FCC (CALEA). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has ruled that law enforcement agencies must meet the highest legal standard before using new surveillance capabilities. The court decision came in a legal challenge filed by EPIC, other privacy groups and the telecommunications industry to invalidate technical surveillance standards issued by the Federal Communications Commission last year. More details at: CDT Policy Post Volume 6. The court's decision is available."

Note that this case is fundamentally about money: the telecom carriers are suing the government because they feel that the government's desired surveillance abilities (mandated under the 1996 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act; this is where Carnivore was born) are too expensive to implement. If the government provided more money (half a billion tax dollars were given to the phone companies when CALEA was passed, but the companies want more), these objections would evaporate.

So there weren't any principles of privacy involved, at least in the beginning. But some civil liberties groups have grabbed on the shirt-tails of this case to make principled arguments - that the surveillance requirements are too burdensome and intrusive in principle, not just too costly. So this is actually a good result where the Court mostly agreed with the civil liberties people that the surveillors should have to get warrants for some of the information they were seeking to get without warrants, and other information may be unavailable entirely. Note however that "call location" information (the ability of cellular carriers to report to the cops which cell phone tower your phone is registered with, and therefore, probably where you are) will still be available to law enforcement.