The
Technology Trade
By Konrad Trope, Esq.
February
2004
A
New Chapter in the War on Terrorism: The FBI Wants
Expanded
Wiretapping Authority
The
debate
over
government interception of Internet communications has expanded to a
new
technology, namely Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) transmissions. Indeed, representatives of the FBI’s
Electronic Surveillance
Technology Section in Chantilly, Virginia have been meeting secretly
with
the Federal Communications Commission since July, 2003, exploring ways
to
provide the FBI with more regulatory authority to “wiretap” Internet
communications,
and in particular VoIP transmissions. [i]
The FBI along with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the
U.S. Department
of Justice want VoIP providers declared as “telecommunications
carrier[s]”
under the Federal Communications Act of 1996 and the Communications
Assistance
for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (“CALEA”).[ii] These three federal law enforcement
organizations
declared that if left unregulated, VoIP would provide a means of
communications
whereby “terrorists, spies, and criminals … [can] most likely evade
lawful
electronic surveillance.” [iii]
Voice Over Internet Protocol allows analog voice
signals
to be digitized into packets of data, sent over a series of networks,
and
reassembled at the other end. [iv].
In other words, telephone calls that have traditionally, since the late
19th century, been made through Public Switching Technology
Networks (“PSTN”)
are now initiated, transmitted and received through computer networks,
and
thereby avoid long distance telephone charges. The technology,
introduced
in 1995, stumbled along until recent improvements in the sound quality
and transmission reliability have made “phone carriers …practically
tripping
over each other to announce aggressive VoIP strategies aimed at both
consumers
and businesses.” [v]
Today,
VoIP
transmissions constitute up to ten percent of all calls made in the
United States, with estimates of up to 2.5 million U.S. subscribers.[vi]
By 2006, it is anticipated that well over 7 million VoIP units will be
in circulation.[vii]
The
most
popular
reason that businesses and consumers give for switching to VoIP is cost
savings.
Flat rate service plans, including unlimited local and long distance
calls
range from $20-$40, which is 20-40% lower than service plans being
offered
by PSTN companies. The main reason for the
cost savings is that VoIP transmissions are not regulated like regular
telephone service. VoIP providers therefore do not have to pay the same
taxes and access fees that are passed onto consumers. [viii]
A
technological
benefit of VoIP is more efficient use of the broadband cable, which
currently
carries half of all VoIP transmissions. Voice, data (e.g., faxes,
e-mail,
instant messaging), and video can all be transmitted simultaneously
through
broadband cable, record an outgoing message and leave it in their
customers’
voice mail inboxes with one click, instead of repeating the same
message
several times a day. Moreover VoIP
transmissions
can be recorded, labeled, indexed, stored, and retrieved when
necessary. [ix]
These technological benefits have made VoIP the new
“target”
of the Federal Government’s War on Terrorism.
Under
existing
federal wiretapping laws, the FBI already has the ability to seek a
court
order to conduct surveillance of any broadband user through its DCS
1000
system, previously called Carnivore. [x]
But federal law enforcement agencies worry that unless Internet service
providers,
and in particular VoIP providers, offer surveillance hubs based on
common
standards, lawbreakers can evade or, at the very least, complicate
surveillance
by using VoIP providers such as Vonage, Time Warner Cable, Net2Phone,
8X8,
deltathree and Digital Voice. [xi]
The
origins
of
this debate date back nine years, to when the FBI persuaded Congress to
enact
a controversial law called the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement
Act (“CALEA”). [xii] The 1994 legislation requires that
telecommunications
services rewire their networks to provide police with guaranteed access
for
wiretaps. The legislation also empowered
the
FCC to issues regulations defining what categories of companies were
subject
to the broad sweeping legislation.[xiii] So far only traditional PSTN (analog)
companies and
wireless phone services have been subject to CALEA.
The
FBI now
has
taken the position that the combination of the federal wiretap laws,
originally
enacted in 1964, and amended numerous times since,[xiv]
along with CALEA, give it the authority to wiretap DSL and other types
of broadband services, including VoIP. [xv]
Critics
are
worried
about privacy issues. Under CALEA,
“telecommunications
services” as defined under CALEA and the 1994 Federal Communications
Act [xvi]
are required to modify their equipment so that law enforcement
officials
can effectively “wiretap” both data and voice transmissions. [xvii]
In particular, since VoIP represents the “blending” of data and real
time
voice transmissions, privacy advocates worry that VoIP “wiretapping”
will
lead to “dataveillance”, where data such as location information will
be
routinely collected for surveillance, without any investigatory
predicate.[xviii] Moreover, neither VoIP providers nor the FBI
can
explain what will be done to ensure that private parties do not engage
in illegal monitoring of private citizens, gaining access to privileged
information,
confidential business/trade secrets, or even sensitive medical
information.[xix]
Moreover,
the
FBI has said that if broadband providers cannot isolate specific VoIP
calls
to and from individual users, they must give police access to the “full
pipe”—which,
therefore, inevitably would include hundreds or thousands of customers
who
are not the target of the investigation.[xx] This technological short-coming of VoIP
“wiretapping”
would inevitably lead to over-inclusive sweeps of conversations and
data
transmissions that are not the “target” of any government probe.
Some
companies
like MetaSwitch and Cisco Systems, Inc. have already cooperated with
the
FBI’s request for CALEA compliance to make their VoIP hardware products
“surveillance
friendly.” These two companies have
“developed
backdoor technology in their VOIP products that enables the FBI to
eavesdrop
at will.” [xxi] Yet segregating particular voice packets not
the
target of a search warrant still presents technological hurdles to many
VoIP
providers, leaving many VoIP transmissions subject to interception
despite falling outside of the scope of the federal search warrant that
authorized
the interception.
On
the
other
hand, not all Internet service providers see themselves as “adverse” to
the
interests of the FBI. EarthLink, for
instance,
wants CALEA and the Federal Wiretapping Statutes applied to VoIP calls. If VoIP calls escape being subjected to this
expanded
regulatory scheme, it would mean that VoIP stays “unregulated” as far
as
the FCC is concerned. Such de-regulation of Internet services, would
allow
the Baby Bells such as Verizon and BellSouth to raise the rates charged
to
ISP’s, such as EarthLink, for access to the copper wire that runs to
subscribers’
homes and businesses. [xxii]
EarthLink,
as
an ISP provider has, therefore, admitted that it sees “the FBI as an
ally
of sorts,” said David Baker, EarthLink’s vice president for law and
public
policy. [xxiii]
The
federal
courts
are split on this issue of expanding government power to regulate [and
therefore
intercept Internet transmissions], and in particular VoIP.
The Ninth Circuit Court
of
Appeals, for instance, in October, declared, to the delight of Internet
Service
Providers (ISP’s) such as EarthLink, that the cable operators to the
extent
that their broadband services use the Internet, are telecommunications
providers,
making them subject to state and federal regulations, including FCC
regulations. [xxiv]
In the same month, a federal district judge in Minnesota issued an
injunction
against the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, barring it from
seeking
to impose tariffs on VoIP provider Vonage. [xxv] Consequently, the Minnesota Federal District
Court
decision allows Vonage to escape being subjected to the FBI’s request
to the
FCC to expand the reach of CALEA. [xxvi]
CONCLUSION
Everything
is
pointing to the exponential growth of VoIP use. VoIP usage might even
exceed
the prediction that by 2007, seventy-five percent of all voice traffic
will
travel over the Internet. Thus, it appears
that
the FBI’s request for expansion of its “wiretapping” authority versus
and
the FCC Chairman Michael Powell’s stated desire to further unleash the
Internet,
making it free from government regulation are set on a collision course.
The
same statutes
that allow for wiretapping also authorize other government activity
such
as taxation of the Internet and the mandating of services such as 911,
guaranteed
access, remote area service, and service for the hearing impaired. On the other hand, if the Internet and in
particular
VoIP is ultimately declared to be free from the string of regulations
and
tariffs that surround traditional PSTN providers, then government
officials
seeking broader “wiretapping” authority may be stymied in their efforts
to
intercept VoIP transmissions and neutralize this new form of a national
security
threat.
* Konrad Trope
is
a cyberspace and intellectual property attorney with a national
practice,
based in Los Angeles. His practice focuses
on
cyberspace, intellectual property and entertainment litigation,
transactions,
and regulatory counseling. He is a member
of
the ABA Cyberspace Committee and a member of the California State Bar
Cyberspace
Committee. He can be reached at ktrope@earthlink.net .
Endnotes:
[i]
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510, 2511, 2518; Declan
McCullagh, FBI targets Net phoning, CNET News.com, July 29,
2003
at http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5056424.html?tag=mainstry
; Joint Comments of U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration,
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, December 15, 2003,
submitted
to December 1, 2003 Federal Communications Commission VoIP Forum at http://ww.fcc.gov/voip/materials-submit.html.031215VOIPForum
.
[ii]
See 47 U.S.C. §§153, 1000 et. seq.; Joint
Comments
of U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration,
and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, December 15, 2003, submitted
to
December 1, 2003 Federal Communications Commission VoIP Forum at http://ww.fcc.gov/voip/materials-submit.html.031215VOIPForum;
LightReading.com, FBI Protests VoIP Approach, January 9, 2004
at http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=45695
.
[v]
Knowledge@Wharton, Behind
VoIP’s renaissance, Wharton School of the University of
Pennsylvania,
January 17, 2004.
[viii]
Michael Powell, Chairman Federal Communications Commission, The Age of Person Communications: Power to the
People”,
January 14, 2004 Speech to the National Press Club, Washington, D.C.;
Charles
M. Davidson, Florida Public Service Commission, VoIP, FCC
Forum—December
1, 2003 at http://www.fcc.gov/voip/presentations/davidson.ppt
; Knowledge@Wharton,
Behind VoIP’s renaissance, Wharton School of the
University
of Pennsylvania, January 17, 2004
[ix] The Siemon Company, White Paper: Video over
IP, www.siemon.com , August
2003; Cisco Systems, Inc., White Paper: The Strategic and Financial
Justification for IP Communications, 2002.
[xii]
See 47 U.S.C. §§1000, et. seq.
[xiv]
See 18 U.S.C. §§2510, et. seq.
[xvi]
47 U.S.C. §§ 153, 1000 et. seq
[xx] Declan McCullagh, FBI targets Net phoning,
CNET News.com, July 29, 2003 at http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5056424.html?tag=mainstry; see also Joint Comments of U.S. Department
of
Justice, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Federal Bureau
of
Investigation, December 15, 2003, submitted to December 1, 2003
Federal
Communications Commission VoIP Forum at http://ww.fcc.gov/voip/materials-submit.html.031215VOIPForum
[xxiv] Brand X Internet Services, et. al. v. FCC,
345 F3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2003)
[xxv]
Vonage Holdings Corp. v Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission,
et. al., 290 F. Supp. 2d 993 (D. Minn.
2003)
[xxvi] Marc Rotenberg, Electronic Privacy
Information
Center Comments on VoIP, December 15, 2003 submitted to December
1, 2003
Federal Communications Commission VoIP Forum at http://www.fcc.gov/voip/comments/EPIC.txt
|