[VOIPSEC] An issue of trust?

[Randell Jesup]

"Geoff Devine" <gdevine at cedarpointcom.com> writes:
>> The original rulings were that CALEA applied to calls to/from the
>> PSTN - this is a defensible position, and had little/no impact on
>> smaller providers - the PSTN gateways could offer the main CALEA
>> support.  The new rules that if one phone on your network can go
>> to/from the PSTN, every call (IP<->IP) falls under CALEA.  This
>> is a huge, major impact.
>
>Personally, I have very little sympathy for people who re-invent things
>without understanding all the requirements.  CALEA predated VoIP.  The
>implementers denied that CALEA could possibly apply to them.  The real
>world intruded on their nirvana.

The FCC originally ruled that CALEA would apply to PSTN-touching calls.
Then they changed their mind and decided to greatly broaden it.  Vonage and
the like would hardly care - most of their calls are to/from PSTN and will
be for a while.  Cable companies don't care (they have CMTSs that can
intercept).  Some companies are predominantly IP to IP and don't own the
links; they get hit far harder.

And fundamentally, unless the FCC decides to crack down and totally
regulate the internet (and all software that accesses it), the rulings that
single out "telephony" are in the end silly.  Will they extend CALEA to IM
audio chat?  In-game Xbox-live chat?  Text-based IM?  What makes it a
"telephone call" that's regulated, versus something that isn't?  And how
long will that definition last?  Any application that lets two people
exchange information?  

In one way, the answer is "they already have" - by applying CALEA to ISP
links by stretching the definition of telephony to the breaking point.
(See the comments by one of the authors of CALEA, Sen. Leahy.)  In another
way, unless you tap the entire link or lock down computers and their net
connections, there's no effective way to keep all those protocols and uses
under control in any sort of defensible interpretation.

>I could go out and invent a "disruptive" automobile that costs $2,000,
>weighs 500 pounds, and gets 75 mpg.  To achieve this, I ignore all the
>automotive safety laws.  The DOT crash tests my car and shuts me down.

CALEA in this usage is closer to the 1984 usage - a video camera installed
in every room built.  Or how the FBI tried to force OnStar to allow them to
use it as an active listening device (not just calls; they wanted to turn
on the mic and listen in).  The courts turned the FBI away, partly because
doing so would mess up safety features for users (airbag deployment, etc).

The problem is one of trying to regulate new paradigms as if they are
exactly some old paradigm.  If they came up with something targeted at
the usage and technology involved, there'd be a lot less problems and
odd, problematic requirements.  Sort of the equivalent of applying rules
for horses to cars (or the other way around - ever seen a horse with
turn signals?)

BTW, that "disruptive automobile" exists - it's called a motorcycle!  And
it has a separate set of regulations that apply only to it, even though it
shares the road with cars.  Thanks for mentioning such a perfect example!
:-)

>I don't see the difference.  It's reasonable public policy to expect
>that all telephone calls be wiretapped if there is a court order for it.

Which comes back to "what's a telephone call?"  To/from the PSTN - sure.
When that isn't the case that things get really confusing, and the argument
that if any subscriber can call to/from the PSTN then everything that
passes through the service provider is a telephone call is just plain
silly.  (What if one class of user can make PSTN calls, and others have
voice IM chat, and can never access the PSTN?  Are those suddenly under
CALEA?  According to the latest order, probably.)

-- 
Randell Jesup, Worldgate (developers of the Ojo videophone), ex-Amiga OS team
rjesup at wgate.com
"The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons
provided for defence against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad."
		- James Madison, 4th US president (1751-1836)