how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
1020 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 DataDocMy avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | Why should ISP's monitor any content at all? The crews that maintain our highways don't catch dug traffickers, why should ISP's verify content. They aren't cops.
--
I wish we all spoke like Christopher Walken. What a beautiful world it would be. | |
| Actually, due to CALEA, the (W)ISPs are prohibited from verifying content. Because of CALEA, ISPs are required to have a subpoena, warrant, or CALEA order in hand before they even capture the content of a customer's data stream.
The only exception to that rule is collection for maintenance purposes. It would be pretty hard to justify collecting content for maintenance purposes. | |
| AnonNutter...
"Actually, due to CALEA, the (W)ISPs are prohibited from verifying content. Because of CALEA, ISPs are required to have a subpoena, warrant, or CALEA order in hand before they even capture the content of a customer's data stream."
Where are you reading that in the CALEA rules??
The only thing I read in SEC. 105. SYSTEMS SECURITY AND INTEGRITY is that you have to insure that no one else can access CALEA data. I find nothing to prohibit a carrier from monitoring, eavesdropping or anything else within its own network. | | |
|
| "CALEA places upon the ISP exactly the same requirements that are placed upon wire line carriers."
When I made that statement in a meeting with the FBI Agent in charge of implementing CALEA, she agreed.
I further stated that that meant we were not legally allowed to monitor our customers communications for content, just as the wireline carriers are not allowed to monitor their customers communications for content. She again agreed.
The derivation of that law, or those requirements, goes back through all the law pertaining to "reasonable expectation of privacy" laws associated with intercepting telephone, cellular and radio communications.
We are now required to have a subpoena, warrant, or CALEA action in had *before* we are authorized to intercept for purposes other than maintenance.
The law does allow the owner of a business to monitor his employees E-Mail, and by extension, I suppose other communications, so long as those communications cross the corporate network. This is because they are also legally responsible for the actions of their employees on that network.
The ISP, just like Verizon, is not responsible for the actions of a customer on their network and therefore they have no need to monitor the content of their customer's communications. ISP only provide a service. The customer has a legal right to "reasonable expectation of privacy" in that context, just as he has with Verizon.
Recent irrationalities relating to San Francisco, AT&T, and NSA are not relevant in this context. | |
| Do you have any citations referring to "We are now required to have a subpoena, warrant, or CALEA action in had *before* we are authorized to intercept for purposes other than maintenance."?
As far as I can tell, any references to "reasonable expectation of privacy" applies to government agencies requiring warrant before obtaining information.
If it all boils down to a matter of "reasonable expectation of privacy", a simple fine print in the TOS removes any reasonable expectation. | |
| said by nevtxjustin:Do you have any citations referring to "We are now required to have a subpoena, warrant, or CALEA action in had *before* we are authorized to intercept for purposes other than maintenance."? No, sir, I am sorry I do not. The issue may have to play out in the courts.
Here is something to think about though. If you know a crime has been committed, you are bound to report that crime, except in very special cases.
A few years ago, I ran "Driftnet" on my gateway router whenever I wanted to demonstrate for people how much porn there really is moving around the net. Then one day, I saw something that I really did not want to know was going on on our network. We don't run that application any more.
Another WISP told me today that when he gets a complaint about a slow connection, he explains that file sharing and some other similar applications can make a link feel slow. It never fails that the customer says he is not doing file sharing. That WISP then asks the customer for a written authorization to sniff the customer's traffic for content. He said that that generally fixes about 80 percent of complaints about slow connections, and about 4 out of five customers refuse to provide the permission.
You could, indeed, put in your TOS that you reserve that right to your network and you would then be covered. As for my "rightness" in this matter. I don't claim any special knowledge other than that which I have been told by agents of the FBI in a formal meeting about CALEA.
We, at this ISP, feel that there is never any need to do deep packet inspection of a customer's traffic. We ask permission to open customer's email folders and we feel that customers do have a right to reasonable expectation of privacy, especially now that VoIP is becoming so common.
But, no, sir, I can't cite case law. You could probably call the CALEA unit at Quantico and get a real good reading on that though.
Here is a link to the web page, if you want to give them a call.
»www.fcc.gov/pshs/services/calea/ | |
|
