Source: http://techlawjournal.com/home/newsbriefs/2003/12a.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:07:50+00:00

Document:
TLJ News: December 1-5, 2003.
12/5. The General Accounting Office (GAO) released a letter [21 pages in PDF], dated December 4, 2003, to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, regarding "Space Acquisitions: Committing Prematurely to the Transformational Satellite Program Elevates Risks for Poor Cost, Schedule, and Performance Outcomes".
This letter states that "In a multibillion-dollar effort, the Department of Defense (DOD) plans to build a space-based communications system that leverages technologies never before used in space. Such a system would enable DOD to transform how information is collected on potential U.S. adversaries and how military forces are warned of hostile action. The backbone of this system will be the Transformational Satellite (TSAT), which is expected to play a pivotal role in connecting communications networks on the ground, in the air, on ships, and in space. TSAT represents a potential leap forward in communications speed, security, and availability. The Air Force, which heads up DOD’s space programs, intends for TSAT to be interoperable with similar systems being acquired for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the intelligence agencies."
It concludes that "the DOD has embarked on a new transformational communications architecture to take advantage of emerging technologies and to remove communications constraints from combat. The department has told the warfighter and Congress that TSAT is a key system that is necessary to achieve this architecture. Responding quickly, the Air Force has set an imminent deadline of December 2003 to start the TSAT program. By starting the program so soon, the Air Force is moving ahead without mature technologies and early design studies -- two pillars of knowledge that would help program officials to reliably establish cost, schedule, and performance goals. This knowledge is not expected to be available until 2006. Our work over the years has found that when programs have been started without the requisite knowledge, program managers and contractors are later burdened by unreasonable expectations about cost, schedule, and performance. Problems usually arise later that lead to cost increases, delays in delivering needed capability to the warfighters, and performance shortfalls."
The letter recommends that the DOD "delay the start of the TSAT acquisition program until technologies have been demonstrated to be at an acceptable level of maturity (at least TRL 6) and until the developing contractor has determined through systems engineering that the design is feasible and producible."
The letter is signed by Robert Levin, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, GAO.
12/5. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) published a notice in the Federal Register that it titles "Final notice of capacity". This pertains to the FBI's implementation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.
The FBI also requests comments on this "Final notice of capacity". The deadline to submit comments to the FBI is February 3, 2004. This notice states that "at the end of the comment period, the FBI will review any such comments it receives and publish a finalized notice in the Federal Register." See, Federal Register, December 5, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 234, at Pages 68112 - 68121.
The Act provides that the concept of a PR is expanded from merely capturing phone numbers, to capturing routing and addressing information in any electronic communications, including internet communications. It similarly expands the concept of TT devices.
The PATRIOT Act serves as the legal authority for technologies that monitor e-mail systems, such as the FBI's Carnivore.
Background. The just published notice discusses at length the meaning of the term "simultaneously", which is used in 47 U.S.C. § 1003. Section 1003 addresses the required capacity of telecommunications carriers to conduct electronic surveillance. That is, it goes to the "actual number of communication interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace devices ..." and the "maximum capacity required to accommodate all of the communication interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace devices ..." It requires the Attorney General to publish a notice in the Federal Register of the actual number and maximum capacity that he estimates that government agencies authorized to conduct electronic surveillance may conduct and use "simultaneously".
The FBI previously issued a final notice [94 pages in PDF], on March 12, 1998. However, the U.S. Telecom Association (USTA) and others challenged that final notice. See, original complaint filed in the U.S. District Court (DC) on August 19, 1998 by the USTA. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the FBI on all issues.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) reversed in part, with instruction that the matter be remanded to the FBI. The Court of Appeals issued its opinion on January 18, 2002. The Appeals Court affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment on the USTA's cost recovery claim, but reversed on the notice of capacity claim.
The District Court case is USTA v. FBI, D.C. No. 98cv02010, Judge Hogan presiding. The Appeals Court case is USTA v. FBI, A.C. No. 00-5386, Judges Williams, Ginsburg and Henderson presiding.
The main gist of the some of the disputes between service providers and the FBI, on the subject of capacity, as well as on some other matters, has been economic. It goes to who bears the burden and expense of complying with the FBI's demands.
Making networks, systems and services capable of being tapped, intercepted and monitored requires considerable expense and effort. And the more intercepts there are, the greater the cost. Normally, when law enforcement entities acquire things, like cars, computers or employees, they purchase or hire these in the marketplace. And, these law enforcement entities need to go to their legislatures to obtain funds to make these acquisitions. CALEA imposes an entirely different regime for the acquisition of interception of communications. It requires that the service providers must give intercepts to the law enforcement entities for free. Whenever something is free, consumption tends to go up.
Since the FBI does not bear the cost of interception, it has aggressively sought expansive interpretations of its authority under the CALEA, knowing that the costs of meeting its demands will be borne by taxpayers, consumers of communications services, and service providers.
Service providers have not been thrilled with this regime, and the demands of the FBI. Moreover, service providers tend not to like to snoop on their customers. And, they certainly do not want their customers to be left with the impression that widespread surveillance is going on.
Summary of December 5 Notice. The just published notice addressed several subjects. First, the FBI reasserted its position that the interception of multiple communications in a single day should be counted as a single item for the purposes of Section 1003.
The Appeals Court wrote that the 1998 notice "treated interceptions as ``simultaneous´´ if they occur on the same day, even though they may each only take moments and do not overlap in the least. ... USTA objects to both these decisions. And rightly so." However, the Appeals Court did not vacate. Rather, it wrote that "we reverse the judgment of the district court, with instructions to remand the case to the agency for a more adequate explanation".
Now, on remand, the FBI continues to assert that "we believe that capacity requirements are most appropriately based on a number of surveillances being conducted on the same day, not on a number of overlapping interceptions." That is, the FBI still wants to count the interception of two phone calls (or two numbers dialed, two e-mail addresses, and etc.) in one day as a single item. This is the very interpretation that the Appeals Court condemned in its 2002 opinion.
Second, the just published notice addresses the breakdown of capacity requirements by type of surveillance. That is, the 1998 notice did not differentiate between the interception of content and the use of pen register or trap and trace devices.
The Court added that "content interceptions might require up to five delivery channels because of multiple participants on a call, while others, such as pen registers and trap and trace devices, typically use only a single channel." The Court criticized this approach, reversed, and instructed the District Court to remand to the FBI for a more adequate explanation.
And now, the just published notice states that "The FBI has considered this issue and continues to find that it is appropriate, given the statutory requirements, to state the capacity requirements for each geographic region as a single actual and single maximum number."
FBI Interpretation of CALEA. Congress passed the CALEA in 1994 to enable law enforcement authorities to maintain their existing wiretap capabilities in new telecommunications devices. The Congress had cell phones in mind. The CALEA provides that wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers must make their equipment capable of certain surveillance functions.
This notice of capacity contains an FBI interpretation of the CALEA. It also contains an FBI interpretation of some of the statutes authorizing electronic surveillance by government entities, including the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (and especially, its Title III), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and the PATRIOT Act, but not the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Finally, the notice contains an FBI interpretation of the relationship between the CALEA and various statutes authorizing electronic surveillance.
Readers may wish to assess whether or not the FBI's interpretations of these statutes are consistent with the language of these statutes.
For example, the FBI asserts that "Congress enacted the CALEA in 1994 to require telecommunications carriers to ensure that their networks have the capability to enable local police, Federal officers and all other law enforcement agencies to conduct lawfully authorized electronic surveillance."
However, the language of the CALEA provides that not all lawfully authorized electronic surveillance is covered by the CALEA. Specifically, the CALEA provides that its requirements "do not apply to (A) information services; or (B) equipment, facilities, or services that support the transport or switching of communications for private networks or for the sole purpose of interconnecting telecommunications carriers."
Moreover, when the Congress passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001, it amended 18 U.S.C. § 3127 to provide that the old phone industry concepts of pen registers and trap and trace devices apply to electronic communications, including internet communications. (See, Section 216.) However, the PATRIOT did not expand FBI authority, or expand service provider obligations, under the CALEA.
To the contrary, the PATRIOT Act provided (at Section 222) that "nothing in this Act shall impose any additional technical obligation or requirement on a provider of wire or electronic communication service or other person to furnish facilities or technical assistance". Moreover, the legislative history of this language is that it was offered by Representatives who were concerned about the FBI's history of expansive implementation of the CALEA. See, story titled "No Technology Mandates", and other stories about the markup of the PATRIOT Act, in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 279, October 4, 2001.
The point is that the FBI's December 5 notice asserts that "lawfully authorized electronic surveillance" is subject to CALEA. Yet, surveillance of certain information services is lawful, but not covered by CALEA.
The FBI notice does not explain its reasoning. However, the FBI's ex parte communications and closed meetings with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioners and staff regarding the application of the CALEA to voice over internet protocol (VOIP) services may provide the basis of its assertion.
It simply asserts that services like VOIP should be classified as telecommunications services, and hence, is subject to CALEA. See, story titled "FBI Wants Broadband Internet Access Classified As A Telecommunications Service So That CALEA Will Apply" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 707, July 30, 2003.
12/5. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted an Order [3 pages in PDF] on December 4, 2003, which it released on December 5, 2003, that amends Part 15 (regarding radio frequency devices) and Part 76 (regarding multichannel video and cable television services) of the FCC's rules.
12/4. A trial jury of the U.S. District Court (CDCal) returned guilty verdicts against William Sutcliffe on thee counts of making interstate threats to injure or kill and five counts of transferring Social Security Numbers (SSNs) with the intent to aid and abet another felony . The U.S. Attorneys Office stated in a release that Sutcliffe was a computer technician employed by Global Crossing until he was fired in September 2001. Sutcliffe created a web site and published in it personal information, including SSNs, dates of birth, and home addresses, of Global Crossing employees. He also provided hyperlinks to other web sites that contained information on identity theft.
12/3. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc [19 pages in PDF] with the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) in Brand X Internet Services v. FCC.
12/3. The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion to exclude testimony of an expert witness with the U.S. District Court (DC) in USA v. First Data. On October 23, 2003, the DOJ, seven states, and the District of Columbia filed a complaint [28 pages in PDF] against First Data Corporation and Concord EFS, Inc., alleging that First Data's planned acquisition of Concord would combine two of the largest point of sale (POS) personal identification number (PIN) debit networks, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. See, story titled "DOJ Sues to Stop Merger of PIN Debit Networks" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 765, October 24, 2003. This case is United States of American, et al., v. First Data Corporation and Concord EFS, Inc., D.C. No. 1:03CV02169, Judge Rosemary Collyer presiding.
12/2. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) submitted comments [38 pages in PDF] to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in response to its request for comments regarding the advertising of prescription drug products directly to consumers (DTC advertising). These comments address, among other topics, internet advertising.
Chairman Michael Powell again stated that the FCC will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) "to inquire about the migration of voice services to IP-based networks and gather public comment on the appropriate regulatory environment for these services". See, FCC release of November 6, 2003. However, at the VOIP forum, he declined to offer a prediction about when the FCC will release this NPRM.
Go to News from November 26-30, 2003.

References: § 1001
 § 1003
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3127
 v. 
 v. 
 v.