Re: Creative Wiretap Arguments [Was :Re: Put up or shut up]

["Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>]

At 2:28 PM -0800 10/9/96, jim bell wrote:

>Which raises the issue, "Is the ISP required to install 'wiretap-friendly'
>capability?"  Apparently not, if the cellular phone industry is any
>precedent:  For awhile, cops couldn't easily tap cell phones because no such
>capability had been designed into the cell-site software.  Such an omission
>was not considered a violation of law.

This is misstating things. Recall that it was the Digital Telephony Act,
passed only two years ago, which said that _phone switches_ had to be have
certain wiretap-friendly mods made, and authorized funding of up to $500
million to pay the phone companies for upgrades. design changes, etc.
(Arguably not enough money, arguably the money won't reach many companies,
and in any case the funding was delayed by Congress for a long time.)

The point being that not even a traditional phone company is in violation
of the law for not having wiretap-friendly designs! So your examples of
cellphones, etc., are beside the point.

We're discussing futures, not current illegalities.

The issue of ISPs falling under the DTA or not is, I think, a battleground
that is coming.

--Tim May


"The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM
that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology."
[NYT, 1996-10-02]
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."