Talk:Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

I moved the following note outside of the article, and onto this talk page:

note: the formatting of the bill itself below needs work.

--cprompt 06:21, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Does calea stipulate that the company not notify the tapped customer after the fact? Does the com provider have any interest in doing this?

CALEA covers the requirements on Service Providers (originally just phone carriers) to provide easy standardized access for taps, and how such taps work. It says nothing about the legal framework under which a tap is authorized, disclosed, etc. — jesup 14:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vendor links

Is there any interest in organizing and expanding the list of CALEA equipment and service vendors? Currently there seems to be an awful lot of stuff in the "external links" section. Curiousstranger 00:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATIS Standard link

"Removed spammy link to unpublishable copyrighted content - not to any sort of publication at all, but rather, to an abstract and a chance to pay $185 to see actual link."

Not including a link to the ATIS standard (ATIS-1000013.2007) - which unfortunately, as with many standards, is not freely available - makes this page much less useful for folks looking to support CALEA. I think that's a big mistake. That standard is the only CALEA approved standard currently available for non-DOCSIS Broadband ISP's. - Curious Stranger 05:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Statistics on Wiretapping

An article that discusses CALEA clarifies there are three types of wiretapping: class-1, where only call information is requested. Class-2 where basic call information is augmented with some additional data. Class-3, live wiretapping. The article asserts that in 2006 there were about 2,900 Class-3 wiretaps in the entire U.S. Over 90% were conducted in California, Florida, New Jersey, New York and Texas. The majority of those 2900 warrants were issued by local and state governments, and not from federal security or law enforcement agencies. According to the aticle the wiretaps had been mostly issued in investigations of drug dealers and child pornographers. For the entire article see http://www.tmcnet.com/ims/0607/ims-feature-article-5.htm

Immunizing carriers from Lawsuits

During recent discussions of whether to immunize the phone companies against lawsuits for their cooperation with NSA over the past few years, I never see any mention of CALEA, The situation has been greatly complicated from a technical point of view with the advent of digital networks and packet switching, and the FBI and others are said to have demanded that the CALEA rules apply to all such networks including VoIP and email on the internet. I am guessing that NSA persuaded the phone companies after 9-11 that what they were asking was legal, although Joe Nacchio is said to have refused on advice of Quest in-house counsel. (He claims charges against him and recent conviction were retribution by the govt.) So the question is: were the NSA requests legal (surely the administration would say YES), and if so, under CALEA, how can anyone sue the cooperating companies, as is being claimed to be a serious threat justifying the immunization that the President demands? Why don't news articles about this mention CALEA? Taylour 15:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, CALEA deals only with the required monitoring capabilities and policies of service providers. The legality of any surveillence taking place with those capabilities is covered under 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801–1811 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2522 (Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968/Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986), not under CALEA (47 U.S.C. §§ 1001–1021), which only states:

A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization and with the affirmative intervention of an individual officer or employee of the carrier acting in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission.

- Curious Stranger 05:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Internet communication?

I find it pretty hard to believe that a US law can mandate global surveillance. 92.78.229.152 (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies?

Why does it say "Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies" in the first paragraph when CALEA by law enforcement wretapping?" Gaintes (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]