FCC Rules VoIP Must Be Tappable

pengie2 writes "The FCC has unanimously approved the U.S. Justice Department's bid to expand CALEA to broadband and VoIP networks, according to reports from SecurityFocus and News.com. This means, following a mandatory public comment period, service providers will have to wire their networks for easy law enforcement surveillance, the way phone companies do now. The feds have wanted this for a long time." Ebon Praetor adds a link to Reuters' version, writing "In addition, the FCC has decided that the push-to-talk, or walkie-talkie, functions available on phones from Nextel should also be subject to the same tapping regulations that regular phones are."

Comments

Monitoring happens at the switch

[HBI]

...which in this case is the VoIP provider. For example, let's say you have Vonage - the taps would occur there. They aren't going to bother sniffing packets, they're going to tap the stream at the CO, same as they would do with a landline.

Ditto for Nextel's PTT stuff.

Of course, you could use a VoIP provider that is based outside the US. That is going to present a problem for law enforcement.

Re:Monitoring happens at the switch

[The Vulture]

I can't speak for how this would work over DSL, but I can tell you how this will work over cable modems. Note: I haven't read the PacketCable spec in a few weeks, so my memory might be a bit hazy.

If you happen to get a cable modem with an MTA (Multimedia Terminal Adapter) built-in (which would serve as your VoIP box), then your ISP will configure two streams for you, one for data, one for voice. (This is where using cable modems for VoIP is truly superior, I think, in that you have a dedicated stream that is prioritized, rather than trying to use the priority bits in the IP headers, which although I may be wrong, is how I understand that regular VoIP is done).

The dedicated stream for your voice goes through a centralized server, which if the police get a warrant, etc., will log every packet, as well as who the call was made to, and for how long. Clearly CableLabs was planning for this requirement even before it became official.

More information here (PDF file, PacketCable Electronic Surveillance Specification).

-- Joe

Wrong

[Wesley Felter]

Obviously you aren't familar with the proposal. The tapping is done by VoIP service providers. They know what traffic is VoIP (basically all of it) and what is not.

The Police don't get to do this often . . .

[Goobermunch]

It's not like the FBI has an easy time of obtaining a wire tap. In fact, they've got to jump through a number of complicated hoops in order to get permission to do so.

Under 18 USCA 2518, the FBI has to apply for a warrant from a court before it can obtain a wire tap. This isn't your ordinary search warrant either. In the criminal justice realm, it's referred to as a "superwarrant."

There's a limit on how long the government can tap your phone for before it has to go back and re-apply. In addition, they've got to show a) the type of information the tap is going to obtain, and b) that there's no other way to get the kind of information they're looking for, other than a wiretap.

There are a few caveats for situations involving national security, organized crime, and immanent danger of death or serious injury, but even there, the agency intercepting the wire communications has to apply for a superwarrant within 48 hours of starting the tap.

Oh, and if they tap you, or try to get a warrant and fail, they've got to let you know within 90 days of ceasing surveilance (or of the denial of the warrant application).

It's not like the government is running around tapping your phone lines willy-nilly.

--AC

Re:Good. And good Again.

[Catamaran]

As the cliche goes, if you're not a criminal, you have nothing to worry about. If you're paranoid, I'd guess you shut up anytime a cop comes within hearing distance.

It's not paranoia. These days people are being arrested for carrying anti-Bush signs.

W-R-O-N-G

[Safety Cap]

USA PATRIOT ACT, section 214-216 means that the boys in the black sedans don't even need to prove jack in order to tap your arse--all that is required is signoff from a govt. attourney. Oh, and you are prohibited from finding out if they've tapped you (unlike in the olden days) until they haul your yellow self off to one of their reeducation centres.

Hope you feel safe, 'cause if you gave up all those rights for ... whatever it was you got, then you just got angloed down, mi amigo.

Re:For more information:

[fishwallop]

Canada's Department of Justice is pushing for the same thing: see the Lawful Access Consultation document about the Canadian government's plans to insure that it can tap your phone, regardless your telephony technology.

For those of you who don't RTFA, note that the VoIP tapping in question refers to "managed" VoIP, which means VoIP that "touches" the PSTN. Computer-to-computer VoIP calls are not covered by the FCC's decision.

Re:Oh well it was nice while it lasted

[andreyw]

The Swiss are the "Helvetians", so Switzerland would be the "Conferederation of Helvetians" or CH.


http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhelvetians.ht ml

Re:The last thing I need...

[Lodragandraoidh]

The FCC ruling effects service providers - not private networks.

Since most, if not all, service provider VOIP networks have controlled access - then this is very doable from a voice tapping perspective.

The problem comes into play when you are talking about the wider internet and non-controlled access. End users could encrypt their data communications - even using IP tunneling in the form of VPN (virtual private network) in addition to multiple layers of encryption.

The authorities could sniff the packets - but wouldn't get much useful information. Further decryption would be required - which negates the 'instant access' that Federal Agents are seeking, and used to with the PSTN (public switched telephone network).

With the ubiquity of VPN - I think it would be problematic to bring a 'no encryption' rule into effect; businesses would squawk at the loss of flexibility and attendant profitability.