|
FBI requests comments on wiretap law implementatio
NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.
Computer underground Digest Wed May 14, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 37
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas ([email protected])
News Editor: Gordon Meyer ([email protected])
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #9.37 (Wed, May 14, 1997)
File 1--FBI requests comments on wiretap law implementation (fwd)
File 2--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 13:39:40 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
Subject: File 1--FBI requests comments on wiretap law implementation (fwd)
(MODERATORS' NOTE: This issue is a reprint of Declan McCullagh's
post from the fight-censorhip list, one of the highest quality
and increasingly influential lists on the Net. Declan is becoming
one of the leading Net reporters, moving into the elite class of
Brock Meeks, Todd Lapin, and a few others).
Source - [email protected]
The FBI is requesting comments on how to implement a section of CALEA, the
controversial Federal wiretapping law. CALEA, or Digital Telephony,
requires telephone companies to ensure that police can easily monitor your
phone calls. The published capacity requirements indicate the FBI wants the
ability to monitor more than 57,000 telephone lines *simultaneously*.
A January 1997 EPIC Alert (4.02) says:
Calculating out the percentages provided by the FBI,
by 1998 the FBI anticipates an increase of 33
percent of landline interceptions and 70 percent
of wireless phones. By 2004, the Bureau estimates
a total increase of 74 percent in interceptions of
landline phones and 277 percent in wireless
phones.
Today's FBI notice says:
The purpose of this notice is to request written
comments and suggestions from the public, including
telecommunications carriers, and affected agencies
should address one or more of the following
points:
(1) evaluate whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility;
(2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of methodology
and assumptions used;
(3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(4) minimize the burden of collection of information
on those who are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology
(e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.)
-Declan
**************
24662 Federal Register / Vol. 62,
No. 87 / Monday, May 6, 1997 / Notices
________________________________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Telecommunications Industry Liaison Unit; Agency
Information Collection Activities: Proposed
Collection; Comment Request
ACTION: Notice of information collection under review;
implementation of Section 104(d) of the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval is
being sought for the information collection listed
below. This proposed information collection was
previously published on April 10, 1996, in the Federal
Register and allowed 60 days for public comment.
A summary of these comments are included at the end of
this notice. The purpose of this notice is to allow an
additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are
encouraged and will be accepted until June 5, 1997.
This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR
1320.10. Written comments and suggestions regarding
the estimated public burden and associated response
time, should be directed to the Office of Management
and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice Desk
Officer, Washington, D.C., 20503.
Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via
facsimile to 202-395-7285. Comments may also be
submitted to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Justice
Management Division, Information Management and
Security Staff, Attention: Department Clearance
Officer, Suite 850, 1001 G Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C., 20530. Additionally, comments may be submitted
to DOJ via fascimile to 202-514-1534.
The purpose of this notice is to request written
comments and suggestions from the public, including
telecommunications carriers, and affected agencies
should address one or more of the following points:
(1) evaluate whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information,
including the validity of methodology and assumptions
used;
(3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(4) minimize the burden of collection of information
on those who are to respond, including through the use
of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other
forms of information technology (e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.)
Overview of this Information Collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: NEW COLLECTION:
The type of information acquired is required to be
furnished by law in terms of a carrier statement, as
set forth in subsection 104(d) of the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) (Pub. L.
103- 414, 47 U.S.C. 1001-1010). A template, which is
not mandatory, has been developed through the
consultative process with the telecommunications
industry to facilitate submission of the
telecommunications carrier statements.
24663 Federal Register / Vol. 62,
No. 87 / Monday, May 6, 1997 / Notices
________________________________________________________________________
Such information is quantitative and qualitative data
necessary to identify any systems or services of a
telecommunications carrier that do not have the
capacity to accommodate simultaneously the number of
interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace
devices as specified in the final capacity notice to
subsection 104(a) of CALEA.
(2) The title of the information collection:
"Telecommunications Carrier Statement.''
(3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable
component of the Department sponsoring the
collections; Form number: None. Sponsored by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), United States
Department of Justice.
(4) Who will be asked or required to respond, as well
as a brief abstract; BUSINESS OR OTHER FOR PROFIT:
Telecommunications carrier, as defined in CALEA
subsection 102(8), will respond.
The collected data will be used in conjunction with
law enforcement priorities and other factors to
determine the telecommunications carriers that may be
eligible for cost reimbursement according to section
104.
The amount and type of information collected will be
minimized to ensure that the submission of this data
by telecommunications carriers will not be burdensome
nor unreasonable. Each telecommunications carrier will
submit a statement identifying any of its systems or
services that do not have the capacity to accommodate
simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen
registers, and trap and trace devices as set forth in
the final capacity notice.
Based on consultation with industry, information
solicited to specifically identify such systems and
services that cannot meet the estimated capacity
requirements will include: Common Language Location
Identifier (CLLI) code or equivalent identifier,
switch model or other system or service type, and the
city and state where the system or service is located.
Unique information required for wireline systems and
services would include the host CLLI code if the
system or service is a remote and the county name(s)
that the system or service serves. Unique information
required for wireless systems and services would
include the Metropolitan or Rural Service Area
number(s), or the Metropolitan or Basic Trading Area
number(s) served by the system or service.
Confidentiality regarding the data received from the
telecommunications carriers will be protected by
statute, regulation, and through non-disclosure
agreements as necessary.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and
the amount of time estimated for an average respondent
to respond: The FBI estimates that there are
approximately three-thousand four-hundred ninety-seven
(3,497) telecommunications carriers, with
approximately twenty-three thousand (23,000) unique
systems or services, that will be affected by this
collection of information. The total amount of time
required to complete the Telecommunications Carrier
Statement will vary, depending upon the total number
of systems and services that the telecommunications
carrier deploys that provide a customer or subscriber
with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct
communications. The time required to read and prepare
information, for one system or service is estimated at
10 minutes. There is also an associated startup time
per carrier that is estimated at 2 hours. This startup
time consists of reading the Telecommunications
Carrier Statement and determining data sources.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours)
associated with the collection is 10,904 hours. These
estimates were derived from close consultation with
industry. Public comment on this proposed information
collection is strongly encouraged.
Summary of Comments to the 60-Day Notice
Based on industry comments and to conform with the
Second Notice of Capacity that was published in the
Federal Register on January 16, 1997, the
Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template has been
changed to:
(a) Remove the capacity field. This information is no
longer required because estimates of actual and
maximum capacity requirements are being provided by
geographical location in Appendices sections A through
D of the Second Notice of Capacity.
(b) Associate the county(s) field to be unique
information required for wireline systems and services
only.
Pacific Telesis Group (PTG)
* PTG is concerned that the startup time does not
include time required to evaluate the Final Notice of
Capacity Requirements itself and match up switch
capability with law enforcement needs. This is
necessary before the template can be populated, and
the time does not appear to be included in current
estimates of hours required to complete the survey.
Response: CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT
states in part that, "Within 180 days after the
publication by the Attorney General of a notice of
capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or
©, a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the
Attorney General a statement identifying any of its
systems or services that do not have the capacity to
accommodate.'' The PRA Carrier Statement estimates the
hour burden for startup time to read the
Telecommunications Carrier Statement and determine
data sources. It was never intended to include time to
evaluate the Final Notice of Capacity.
* PTG contends that it is extraordinarily difficult
to determine the county for each prefix served by a
switch. The difficulty escalates further for those
switches located near county boundaries and which
include prefixes that serve multiple counties. The
work to make these identifications would be
administratively burdensome and labor intensive, and
would certainly exceed the ten-minute parameter
utilized by TILU. PTG would support a change to the
provision of information regarding county in which a
switch resides, rather than counties served by each
prefix within a switch.
Response: While we agree that county information does
not reside in the traditional engineering and planning
database, i.e., Local Switch Demand and Facility
(LSD&F) database, this information is available in
other databases such as E911 and Wirecenter Map
Information. Also, software is available that provides
information on wirecenter serving areas. One of the
RBOCs stated on an ECSP Subcommittee conference call
that they were able to extract county information from
their E911 database. The mechanized Telecommunications
Carrier Statement Template allows for the import of
data from a database and provides instructions for
dealing with imports from multiple databases.
United States Telephone Association (USTA)
* USTA recommends that the final review and public
comment period be provided on this notice following
the final promulgation of the Final Notice of Capacity
requirements and Cost Recovery Procedures. Since the
carrier statement is intended to respond to a notice
of capacity requirements, responding to item 3c
("capacity'') is problematic. In short, the ability of
carriers to complete column 3c, and the burden imposed
by column 3c is directly related to the definition of
24664 Federal Register / Vol. 62,
No. 87 / Monday, May 6, 1997 / Notices
________________________________________________________________________
capacity in the Final Notice of Capacity requirements.
Response: CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT
states in part that, "Within 180 days after the
publication by the Attorney General of a notice of
capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or
©, a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the
Attorney General a statement identifying any of its
systems or services that do not have the capacity to
accommodate * * *.'' This PRA Carrier Statement
requires a minimum of 90 days for comment (one 60 day
comment period and the current 30 day comment period).
If the PRA Carrier Statement was deferred until after
the issuance of the Final Notice of Capacity, the
template would be unavailable for most of the 180
days. Furthermore, template item 3c ("capacity'') has
been removed from the Telecommunications Carrier
Statement Template.
* USTA believes that the template should apply to
switches alone.
Response: The "Equipment Type,'' item 3b, is intended
for listing equipment that the carrier believes does
not have the capacity to accommodate simultaneously
the number of interceptions, pen registers, and trap
and trace devices as specified in the Final Notice of
Capacity to subsection 104(a) of CALEA. As stated in
CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT "Within 180
days after the publication by the Attorney General of
a Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to
subsection (a) or ©, a telecommunications carrier
shall submit to the Attorney General a statement
identifying any of its systems or services that do not
have the capacity to accommodate * * *.'' The
telecommunications carrier may need to identify any
element in their network or other network (i.e.,
Service Control Point, Voice Mail System) that
provides call identifying information or call content
as identified in CALEA Section 103.
* USTA is not convinced that the burden imposed on
carriers, especially small companies, by completing
the template will be manageable as is implied in the
notice [of Information Collection]. Given the lack of
certain key definitions and terms upon which the
template is based (e.g., capacity, service), this
burden in fact could be significant.
Response: The concern about burden is based on lack of
definitions such as capacity and service. The request
for capacity information has been removed from the
Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template. With
regard to services, CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER
STATEMENT states in part that, "Within 180 days after
the publication by the Attorney General of a notice of
capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or
©, a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the
Attorney General a statement identifying any of its
systems or services that do not have the capacity to
accommodate * * *''. The telecommunications carrier
may need to identify any element in their network or
other network (i.e., Service Control Point, Voice Mail
System) that provides call identifying information or
call content as identified in CALEA Section 103.
* CALEA requires carriers to be in compliance with
the Act's capabilities requirements by October 1998.
However, carriers are given three years following the
publication of the Final Notice of Capacity in which
to comply with the capacity requirements. USTA
understands that TILU considers the operative deadline
for compliance with the Act therefore is contingent on
capacity requirements deadline, not the capabilities
requirements deadline. USTA seeks final clarification
of this issue.
Response: The FBI has no statutory authority to
countermand the intentions of the Congress, and it has
no authority to waive the statutory compliance dates
specified in CALEA. There is, however, a provision and
mechanism under CALEA, grounded in the principle of
reasonableness, that offers relief to
telecommunications carriers where there is a prospect
that the capability assistance compliance deadline
cannot be met. Section 107 of CALEA permits
telecommunications carriers to seek an extension(s) of
time from the FCC in order to achieve compliance with
the assistance capability requirements under
circumstances where a carrier can show that compliance
with those requirements is not reasonably achievable
through the application of available technology during
the compliance period specified in Section 111. The
Commission may grant such an extension after
consultation with the Attorney General in those cases
where such an extension is reasonably warranted. Since
CALEA was enacted, it is generally understood that
various carriers and manufacturers have moved at
different paces in pursuing CALEA capability
solutions. Given this, there is support for the
perspective that CALEA's provisions, which contain
mechanisms for reasonable treatment and compliance
date extensions in special cases, should be utilized
as enacted.
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
* BellSouth is unable to estimate the amount of time
required to complete a carrier statement which seeks
data concerning the capacity of a system or service
that is not a switch with a CLLI code.
Response: The "Equipment Type'', item 3b, is intended
for listing equipment that the carrier believes does
not have the capacity to accommodate simultaneously
the number of interceptions, pen registers, and trap
and trace devices as specified in the Final Notice of
Capacity to subsection 104(a) of CALEA. As stated in
CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT "Within 180
days after the publication by the Attorney General of
a Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to
subsection (a) or ©, a telecommunications carrier
shall submit to the Attorney General a statement
identifying any of its systems or services that do not
have a capacity to accommodate * * *.'' The
telecommunications carrier may need to identify any
element in their network or other network (i.e.,
Service Control Point, Voice Mail System) that
provides call identifying information or call content
as identified in CALEA Section 103.
Ameritech
* Although the Notice states that carriers should
provide information identifying "systems and
services'', the FBI should acknowledge that carriers
will be providing information only regarding their
switches. More importantly however, although the FBI's
Electronic Surveillance Interface Document lists
different services which the FBI views as subject to
CALEA, the generic requirements [industry standard]
currently being finalized, focus exclusively on
building 'wiretap capability' within the switch.
Response: The "Equipment Type'', item 3b, is intended
for listing equipment that the carrier believes does
not have the capacity to accommodate simultaneously
the number of interceptions, pen registers, and trap
and trace devices as specified in the Final Notice of
Capacity to subsection 104(a) of CALEA. As stated in
CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT "Within 180
days after the publication by the Attorney General of
a Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to
subsection (a) or ©, a telecommunications carrier
shall submit to the Attorney General a statement
identifying any of its systems or services that do not
have the capacity to accommodate * * *.'' The
24665 Federal Register / Vol. 62,
No. 87 / Monday, May 6, 1997 / Notices
________________________________________________________________________
telecommunications carrier may need to identify any
element in their network or other network (i.e.,
Service Control Point, Voice Mail System) that does
not have the capacity to accommodate the call
identifying information or call content as identified
in CALEA Section 103.
* Ameritech points out that the "capacity'' of the
switch has yet to be defined by the FBI.
Response: Law enforcement has defined capacity in the
Second Notice of Capacity by geographic area as
required in CALEA. The switch capacity is not required
in the Telecommunications Carrier Statement.
Therefore, template item 3c ("capacity'') has been
removed from the Telecommunications Carrier Statement
Template.
SBC Communications Inc.
* The estimate of time required to prepare the
Telecommunications Carrier Statement, whether using
template or not, is potentially understated. It is in
the estimation of capacity that most of the work
involved in the preparation of a Telecommunications
Carrier Statement will occur, not in the preparation
of the form itself. SBC estimates that it spent a
minimum of 64 hours working on the Initial Capacity
Notice developing data that will be used in filling
out the Telecommunications Carrier Statement * * *.
Response: The PRA Carrier Statement estimates the hour
burden for startup time to read the Telecommunications
Carrier Statement and determine data sources. It was
never intended to include time to evaluate the Final
Notice of Capacity. The hour burden estimates were
developed through the consultative process with the
ECSP Committee. One of the assumptions was that most
of the data could be obtained from the Local Switch
Demand and Facilities (LSD&F) database or its
equivalent. The concern that most of the work will
involve capacity estimation will be eliminated because
item 3c ("capacity'') has been removed from the
Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template.
* Serving areas extend far beyond the location of the
switch or other facility and are not kept by county in
the ordinary course of business.
Response: While we agree that county information does
not reside in the traditional engineering and planning
database (e.g., LSD&F), this information is available
in other databases such as E911 and Wirecenter Map
Information. Also, software is available that provides
information on wirecenter serving areas. One of the
RBOCs stated on an ECSP Subcommittee conference call
that they were able to extract county information from
their E911 database. The mechanized Telecommunications
Carrier Statement Template allows for the import of
data from a database and provides instructions for
dealing with imports from multiple databases.
* Concern was expressed about capacity requirements
being stated based upon the conditions at the time of
collection and that over time the requirements would
change. SBC stated that ongoing collection and
validation of data to determine capacity would exceed
the time estimates in the Carrier Statement Notice.
Response: The Second Notice of Capacity issues
estimated actual and maximum capacity requirements in
actual numbers. A change in the requirements would
only occur on the issuance of a new Notice of
Capacity, which would require a response.
MFS Communications Company, Inc.
* MFS states, "It is not clear that the information
sought will be comprehensive or very useful to the FBI
in fulfilling its notice requirements under CALEA for
three major reasons'' that are listed.
First, the FBI's survey of existing switches and
telecommunications capacity will likely capture only a
minority of telecommunications carriers and will
provide a distorted view of the industry. With the
enactment of the Telecommunications Act, a number of
new firms--like MFS--can be expected to enter or
greatly expand their operations in the
telecommunications market over the next four years.
Obviously, those new entrants' capacity and networks,
particularly those entrants who have not yet entered
the market, will not be included. The
Telecommunications Act also permits carriers to enter
local telephone markets as resellers of local service
capacity (e.g., AT&T buys capacity from NYNEX and
resells it as local service). The impact of such
resale activities on an aggregate estimate of capacity
are unclear.
Second, CALEA includes only public telecommunications
networks, and excludes private networks. So long as
the definition of private networks is unclear, firms
can minimize their CALEA reporting requirements and
obligations if they unilaterally classify facilities
as "private network'' facilities. Often there is not a
crisp distinction between public and private
telecommunications networks and services, so there is
a strong possibility that the survey will include a
mismatch of services. There are many firms, such as
shared tenant services (STS) providers that provide
telephone service to the tenants of a building or
campus and it is not clear whether the capacity of
such offerings should be included.
Third, CALEA excludes information services. Again, a
firm's CALEA obligations can be minimized to the
extent that it unilaterally classifies its activities
as information services. So long as the precise scope
of information and telecommunications services is not
defined, some firms will report capacity that others
would not.
Response: As stated in CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER
STATEMENT "Within 180 days after the publication by
the Attorney General of a Notice of Capacity
requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or ©, a
telecommunications carrier shall submit to the
Attorney General a statement identifying any of its
systems or services that do not have the capacity to
accommodate simultaneously the number of
interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace
devices set forth in the notice under such
subsection.'' The Telecommunications Carrier Statement
Template is not a survey and is not mandatory. The
Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template was
developed through the consultative process with
industry representatives to facilitate submission of
the Carrier Statement. The information requested will
be used by law enforcement in conjunction with law
enforcement priorities and other factors to determine
the specific equipment, facilities, and services that
require immediate modification.
In the Second Notice of Capacity, law enforcement
provided a notice of estimated capacity requirements
by geographic area and has selected counties as the
appropriate basis for expressing capacity requirements
for telecommunications carriers offering local
exchange service (i.e., wireline carriers). Appendix A
of the Second Notice of Capacity lists all actual and
maximum capacity requirements by county. These
requirements represent the simultaneous number of
call-content interceptions and wireline interceptions
of call-identifying information for each county in the
United States and its territories. Wireline carriers
may ascertain the actual and maximum capacity
requirements that will affect them by looking up in
Appendix A the county (or counties) for which they
offer local exchange service.
Law enforcement's county capacity requirements are
based on historical interception data and represent
its interception needs anywhere in the county. The
county requirements apply to all existing and any
future wireline
24666 Federal Register / Vol. 62,
No. 87 / Monday, May 6, 1997 / Notices
________________________________________________________________________
carriers offering local exchange service in each
county, regardless of equipment type used or customer
base.
CALEA applies to all telecommunications carriers as
defined in section 102(8). Notices will eventually be
issued covering all telecommunications carriers.
However, the Second Notice of Capacity and its
associated Final Notice of Capacity should be viewed
as a first phase application to telecommunications
carriers offering services that are of most immediate
concern to law enforcement--that is, those
telecommunications carriers offering local exchange
service and certain commercial mobile radio services,
specifically cellular service and personal
communications service (PCS). The exclusion from the
notice of certain telecommunications carriers that
have services deployed currently or anticipate
deploying services in the near term does not exempt
them from obligations under CALEA.
* The hour burden depends on how each carrier
interprets the meaning of capacity.
Response: The Second Notice of Capacity provides
capacity requirements based on geographic area and
states the estimated actual and maximum capacity
numbers and not a percentage. Also, item 3c
("capacity'') has been removed from the
Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template and
therefore should not impact the estimated hour burden
to respondents.
Synacom Technology, Inc.
* Synacom states, "Law enforcement should provide
some guidance as to which features and services should
be accessible and then determine the capacity required
for each feature and service. This is to prevent
overbuilding the intercept capacity.'' Also, "The
information requested is largely unnecessary, because
its resolution is not adequate to accurately measure
compliance with neither the CALEA capability
requirements nor the capacity notice.''
Response: The Telecommunications Carrier Statement
Template was developed through the consultative
process with industry representatives. The information
requested will be used by law enforcement in
conjunction with law enforcement priorities and other
factors to determine the specific equipment,
facilities, and services that require immediate
modification.
* Synacom also states, "* * * the burden to gather
the required information is much more difficult to
gather as it requires technical expertise to evaluate
whether the systems of the telecommunications service
provider collectively provide the required access for
each of several independent features and services.''
Response: The Telecommunications Carrier Statement
Template was simplified to its present form through
the consultative process with the telecommunications
industry. The telecommunications carriers need only
list systems and services that do not meet the
requirements of CALEA subsection 104(d). If any system
or service does not meet the requirements of CALEA
subsection 104(d), it must be reported.
* Synacom states that, "There should be a
'jurisdiction' column instead of the 'county', 'city',
and 'state' columns.'' Also, "the 'MSA, RSA, MTA, or
BTA' field is largely irrelevant.''
Response: In the Second Notice of Capacity, law
enforcement provides a notice of estimated capacity
requirements by geographical area and has selected
counties and market as the appropriate basis for
expressing capacity requirements for
telecommunications carriers offering local exchange
service. Appendix A of the Second Notice of Capacity
lists all estimated actual and maximum capacity
requirements by county. The selection of county as a
means to define law enforcement requirements takes
into consideration, by its very nature, a longstanding
territorial location that is unchanged, well
documented, is understandable to both law enforcement
and industry, and takes into consideration a specific
law enforcement jurisdiction. These requirements
represent the simultaneous number of call-content
interceptions and wireline interceptions of
call-identifying information for each county in the
United States and its territories. Wireline carriers
may ascertain the estimated actual and maximum
capacity requirements that will affect them by looking
up in Appendix A the county (or counties) or
Appendices B, C, D for which they offer local exchange
service.
Law enforcement's county or market capacity
requirements are based on historical interception data
and represent its interception needs anywhere in the
county or market. The county or market requirements
apply to all existing and any future wireline carriers
offering local exchange service in each county,
regardless of equipment type used or customer base.
For wireless carriers, individual county boundaries
were not considered to be feasible geographic
designations for identifying capacity requirements.
Instead, law enforcement determined that the wireless
market service area would be the most appropriate
geographic designations. Although these areas comprise
sets of counties, the use of such market service areas
best takes into account the greatest inherent mobility
of wireless subscribers. What is most important is
that historical information on wireless interceptions
could only be associated with market service areas.
Therefore, the county(s) field of the
Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template is
information required for wireline systems and services
only.
Dated: April 30, 1997.
Robert B. Briggs, Department Clearance Officer, United
States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 97-11708 Filed 5-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-02-M
[Thanks to JYA. --Declan]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <[email protected]>
Subject: File 2--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: [email protected]
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to [email protected]
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #9.37
************************************
|
|
