Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Fiducianet, inc. tm 1 Presented by H. Michael Warren, President fiducianet, inc. VoIP Technology Perspectives Law Enforcement Concerns & CALEA Compliance.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Fiducianet, inc. tm 1 Presented by H. Michael Warren, President fiducianet, inc. VoIP Technology Perspectives Law Enforcement Concerns & CALEA Compliance."— Presentation transcript:

1 fiducianet, inc. tm 1 Presented by H. Michael Warren, President fiducianet, inc. VoIP Technology Perspectives Law Enforcement Concerns & CALEA Compliance Requirements

2 fiducianet, inc. tm 2 DOJ/FBI/DEA Petition Filed for expedited rule making on 3/10/04 –Comments due 4/12/04; replies by 4/27/04 LEA asserts: –LEA ability to conduct ELSUR compromised –Action needed to clarify services & entities subject to CALEA –Asks FCC to reaffirm that CALEA applies to packet services, particularly broadband access and broadband telephony –Types of enforcement actions –Who is responsible for costs (CALEA vs Provisioning)

3 fiducianet, inc. tm 3 FCC CALEA NPRM On August 9, 2004, the FCC released an NPRM addressing the issues presented in Law Enforcement’s Petition The FCC also reached several tentative conclusions that may have a direct impact upon service providers Public comments will be due 45 days after publication in Federal Register; reply comments due 30 days later

4 fiducianet, inc. tm 4 CALEA NPRM - Tentative Conclusions Broadband access service providers are subject to CALEA “Managed” VoIP providers are subject to CALEA but not peer to peer providers Common carriers must be CALEA compliant regardless technology offered Future services do not need to be CALEA compliant before being offered

5 fiducianet, inc. tm 5 CALEA NPRM: Proposals & Questions What are advantages/disadvantages to having third parties handle electronic surveillance? Is the standard setting process deficient? Is there a need for compliance extensions? Does the FCC have adequate enforcement authority to ensure packet mode compliance? What are the costs of CALEA and how should they be recouped?

6 fiducianet, inc. tm 6 CALEA NPRM - Declaratory Ruling “Push to Talk” services are subject to CALEA

7 fiducianet, inc. tm 7 Definition of Telecommunications Carrier under CALEA (FCC’s Second Report & Order 8/99) –Section 102 (8)(A)&(B) –Section 102 (8) (C) (ISP’s exempt) Definition of Telecommunications Carrier under Communications Act FCC - NPRM: –Supports LEA’s request for a broader definition of telecommunications carrier to cover packet technologies –Key question is whether FCC has developed record to support its determination if there is an appeal “Telecommunications Carrier”

8 fiducianet, inc. tm 8 ELSUR Obligations Obligation to provide all information, facilities and technical assistance part of ELSUR laws since 1970 (“Technical Assistance”) –Apply available technology –Under some circumstances, allow use of LEA technology in network

9 fiducianet, inc. tm 9 Enforcement Actions CALEA Section 108 clearly sets forth enforcement provisions FCC regulations under CALEA Section 105 contain enforcement and penalty provisions for non- compliance LEA Petition over-reaching by asking for E-911 enforcement provisions to apply to CALEA ELSUR Law allows for penalties /show cause orders and obstruction of justice proceedings

10 fiducianet, inc. tm 10 Costs FCC asked to confirm carriers bear sole financial burden for CALEA compliance (post 1995) Section 107(b)(3) requires FCC to minimize cost to residential ratepayers LEAs want carriers to impose an “end-user” surcharge on ratepayers FCC in Order on Remand (2002) allowed recovery of capital costs for punch list compliance

11 fiducianet, inc. tm 11 Costs (cont.) FCC: NPRM –FCC will refer to CALEA statute for pre/post carrier cost recovery –FCC will point to CALEA Cost Recovery Regs –FCC will clarify order on remand language to eliminate cost recovery for punch list –ELSUR Statutes allow for cost recovery therefore no need to address provisioning costs –CALEA currently allows carriers to petition PUCs to include CALEA related costs

12 fiducianet, inc. tm 12 Trusted 3 rd Parties Build internal infrastructure: –Legal Assistance to develop Policies / Procedures (Internal or External) –Hire & Train Personnel Expertise in Legal Matters and ELSUR –Implement Compliance Program & Audit Procedures –Invest in Technology to Support Operations Outsource –Outside law firm for Policy / Procedures / Review –Service Bureau (end-to-end solution)

13 fiducianet, inc. tm 13 Issues Facing VoIP Service Providers Technology has made access to network elements and information more automated LEAs are demanding access to these digital reservoirs of customer related information Law Enforcement is demanding CALEA Compliance Problem: –Many Service Providers do not have the personnel or the business systems in place to handle Broad record production searches Electronic Surveillance Demands

14 fiducianet, inc. tm 14 Impact on the VoIP Service Provider An increasing personnel burden & high cost in support of LEAs demands for records and technical assistance –Growing workload increases potential for mistakes –As workload increase and backlogs grow, greater risk of Show cause action from LEAs and fines Increased legal risk resulting from errors –Greater risk to your public image Business Challenge –More is being demanded of the VoIP Service Provider –Business realities Function is non-core and non-revenue generating Economic conditions require cost reductions

15 fiducianet, inc. tm 15 For more information contact… H. Michael Warren, President fiducianet, inc. 703 796-1100 ext. 22 (voice) 703 689-0566 (fax) 703 863-1979 (mobile) e-mail at

Download ppt "Fiducianet, inc. tm 1 Presented by H. Michael Warren, President fiducianet, inc. VoIP Technology Perspectives Law Enforcement Concerns & CALEA Compliance."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google