| If you leave your wireless open Then you have the SAME RIGHTS as an ISP. That means you have a safe harbour provision, which frees you from any liability. It doesn't matter if you left it open by mistake, or for free. It doesn't matter if you don't keep logs. The FACT is that you were ACTING as an ISP for someone, and the RIAA knows that. What they are trying to do is make '2 classes' of ISP's. One class, the megacorp, will bend over and hand over records. The other class is the end user ISP. They want to make those people responsible, even though they are ACTING like an ISP.
The RIAA can't win. Period.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | I would need to look at the rulings, but "acting" like an ISP is not necessarily the same thing as "being" an ISP. Just because you leave your WAP open doesn't make you an ISP and therefore most likely wouldn't fall under the same rights as an ISP. Now if you want to establish a business entity and use a business account, you could then fall under the service providers' rights. |
|
| said by openbox9:I would need to look at the rulings, but "acting" like an ISP is not necessarily the same thing as "being" an ISP. Maybe not, but it is an interesting theory that I don't believe has been approached legally. If that's the case then such a claim can be valid in regards to safe harbor provisions. Any judge, Internet savvy or not, can look at the reasonings and find the argument reasonable. It would be sweet if that happened. The RIAA would think twice about their carpet bombing technique for lawsuits. |
|
 John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:If you leave your wireless open then you have the SAME RIGHTS as an ISP. It also means that you have the same responsibilities as an ISP. Therefore, with your open access point, as a "facilities-based broadband Internet access provider" you are required to be compliant with CALEA.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicat···ment_Act
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···53A1.pdf
»www.computerworld.com/action/art···Number=1
Try as I might, my thorough reading of the law failed to turn up a provision that allows exemption for "I don't wanna" or "I can't afford it".
As an access provider you must comply with the law.
--
A is A |
|
| Umm, i worked with calea extensively. CALEA deals with VOICE CALLS, not data connections. If your not an interconnected (i.e. SS7) provider, you don't follow calea.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
|
|
John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | said by karlmarx:Umm, i worked with calea extensively. CALEA deals with VOICE CALLS, not data connections. If your not an interconnected (i.e. SS7) provider, you don't follow calea. Really now...! "Extensively"...!
Well then, I guess that EVERYONE ELSE that is involved with the issue must be wrong.
Believe me, if you have some magic insight as to how to avoid being subject to CALEA then you could be raking in the millions right now. You should step and make your secret knowledge known.
--
A is A |
|
| CALEA was intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities. Common carriers, FACILITIES-BASED broadband Internet access providers, and providers of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service – all three types of entities are defined to be “telecommunications carriers” for purposes of CALEA section 102, 47 U.S.C. § 1001
NO wireless router can be considered a facility-based ISP. I like to know who "everyone else" is that say otherwise. Read more thoroughly. |
|
| reply to John Galt
Not everyone, just you.In 1994, Congress unquestionably exempted the internet (both access to the internet and applications used online) from CALEA obligations.
"The Act obliges telephone companies to make it possible for law enforcement agencies to tap any phone conversations carried out over its networks, as well as making call detail records available."
VOICE CONVERSATIONS.. Do you even KNOW how CALEA works? I actually wrote software for a softswitch that was CALEA compliant. It allows an agency to tap a PHONE CALL (RE: VOICE), and provides them with the CDR's. An ISP is NOT SUBJECT to CALEA. PERIOD.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | reply to SRFireside
said by SRFireside:NO wireless router can be considered a facility-based ISP. I like to know who "everyone else" is that say otherwise. Read more thoroughly. There are several hundred people at WISPCON in New Orleans right now that would welcome your views that they are not subject to CALEA comliance.
However, reading further...
11. The SRP contains three components, each of which must be satisfied before the Commission can deem a person or entity a telecommunications carrier for purposes of CALEA. We address each of these components in turn. First, the SRP requires that an entity be “engaged in providing wire or electronic communication switching or transmission service.” In the Notice, we interpreted the term “switching” in this phrase to include “routers, softswitches, and other equipment that may provide addressing and intelligence functions for packet-based communications to manage and direct the communications along to their intended destinations.” We affirm this reading of the statute, which has support in the record. We disagree with commenters who claim that the term “switching” as used by Congress in 1994 did not contemplate routers and softswitches, and thus suggest that the interpretation of this term must forever be limited to the function as it was commonly understood in 1994, namely circuit switching in the narrowband PSTN. Our decision today is reinforced by judicial precedent that has found CALEA to apply to certain packet-switched services. Moreover, limiting the interpretation of “switching” to circuit-switched technology would effectively eliminate any ability the Commission may have to extend CALEA obligations under the SRP to service providers using advanced digital technologies, in direct contravention of CALEA’s stated purpose.
Our interpretation of the term “switching” is consistent with the Commission’s prior recognition that CALEA is a technology-neutral statute that focuses on function, not technology. In today’s technological environment, where IP-based broadband networks are rapidly replacing the legacy narrowband circuit-switched network, various types of packet-mode equipment are increasingly being deployed to “originate, terminate, or direct communications” to their intended destinations. Interpreting CALEA’s inclusion of the word “switching” to describe a function that Congress intended to be covered – regardless of the specific technology employed to perform that function – is, in our view, the interpretation most consistent with the purpose of the statute.
--
A is A |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:Not everyone, just you.In 1994, Congress unquestionably exempted the internet (both access to the internet and applications used online) from CALEA obligations. YAAAAAAAAWN, here we go again. "KarlMarx", as of August 2005 the FCC determined that ALL ISP's were subject to CALEA. How do they define as ISP you ask? Well, an ISP is now defined as any company, person, or entity that:
said by FCC August 2005 ruling :
1. is engaged in providing wire or electronic communication switching service OR
2. is engaged in providing wire or electronic communication transmission service AND
3. the Commission finds that such service is a replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service AND
4. the Commission finds that it is in the public interest to deem such a person or entity to be a telecommunications carrier for purposes of CALEA.
Hence forth, that August 2005 Order states that the FCC had already found that "switching" is the same as (or includes) providing "routers, softswitches, and other equipment that may provide addressing and intelligence functions for packet-based communications to manage and direct the communications along to their intended destinations." So, in other words, if you're providing routing services you fulfill condition #1. You're "facilities-based."**
**http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/9/2095565.html
(sits back, cracks knuckles and waits amused for the "response") 
--
я люблю медведей! |
|
John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3
1 edit | said by wifi4milez:Hence forth, that August 2005 Order states that the FCC had already found that "switching" is the same as (or includes) providing "routers, softswitches, and other equipment that may provide addressing and intelligence functions for packet-based communications to manage and direct the communications along to their intended destinations." So, in other words, if you're providing routing services you fulfill condition #1. You're "facilities-based." It is also worth noting that there is no distinction as to whether the access is fee-based or not. This issue was decided in the "academia" debate as to what constituted private vs. public access.
EDIT: Typo
--
A is A |
|
| reply to John Galt
That still doesn't override the fact that a home user is not a facility based broadband service provider. Having a router or switch installed in your closet doesn't make it a NOC. Do you have anything citing instances where someone with a wireless router fell prey to CALEA regulations? |
|
John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | said by SRFireside:That still doesn't override the fact that a home user is not a facility based broadband service provider. Having a router or switch installed in your closet doesn't make it a NOC. Do you have anything citing instances where someone with a wireless router fell prey to CALEA regulations? The regulations are being discussed now and compliance is required by May 14, 2007. In the meantime it is only "theory".
Your assertion that it is a "fact" that a home-based user is NOT a facilities based broadband provider is incorrect. The law makes no exception as to whether a home based wireless router is exempt. If you read the discussion, it is apparent that the FCC is going to interpret the intent of the law as Congress enacted it. That means that the requirement for compliance extends to the very edge of the network.
As soon as you have an unsecured AP offering public access with NATted IP addresses, you are required to compliant. It is also necessary to mention that records retention becomes necessary for the NATted addresses. That is a whole 'nother can of worms, though.
--
A is A |
|
| Since that hasn't happened yet I stand by what is found in the CALEA since it is pretty plainly written. Hopefully this point will be asserted during this regulatory discussion. Any other interpretation would be wrong by the wording and intent originally written (not to mention incredibly invasive and would put America years behind the rest of the broadband world... if not decades). |
|
John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | said by SRFireside:Since that hasn't happened yet I stand by what is found in the CALEA since it is pretty plainly written. Hopefully this point will be asserted during this regulatory discussion. Any other interpretation would be wrong by the wording and intent originally written... Well, one can hope...!
Good luck with that!
--
A is A |
|
