|
George Orwell's book, 1984, describes a world where it's citizen's are under constant surveillance by "Big Brother". When the "Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act" (CALEA) was signed in 1994, many grumbled that the law was the launch of Big Brother, a government program to watch it's citizen's. It was just 20 years behind
schedule.
CALEA changed how providers of telecommunication services (of which IPTV is included) cooperate with law enforcement. Traditionally, service providers provided their "best effort" when service asked for assistance in by law enforcement. CALEA, changed the assistance into a legal requirements for all telecommunications service providers.
It's the law...
Congress made the law quite simple: Develop a standardized system so law enforcement can assure that they only needed one type of interface for their collection equipment to receive data sent by carriers in a standardized fashion. In 1994 TIA and ATIS sat with law enforcement and hammered out the first standard for wiretap; J-STD-025. It balanced the needs of law enforcement and the privacy issues that a democracy sweats.
The J-STD-025 system, as it is today, can only be activated by a service provider. The service provider will only activate a wiretap based on an authorized court order that states the target phone number and the authorization period for the wiretap.
Additionally, the CALEA law calls for law enforcement to receive the data intercepted "off-site". In other words, the delivery of call data information and voice if authorized must be transmitted to a law enforcement collection point that is outside of the carriers property. Keeping law enforcement out of the switch room relieved privacy advocates concern that law enforcement might start "fishing" for other inform while isolated in the switch room. Yes, maybe in 1926 when the task could be done with alligator clips and a handset this did occur but it would be somewhat more challenging today.
Shortly after J-STD-025 was the surge in new telecommunications services. IP phones, IPTV, power line communications, Push-to-Talk (PTT) and a variety of other services that could be viewed as
|
telecommunications services. Legal battles ensued over who was defined as a "carrier" and what services are defined as "telecommunications". Voicemail, for example, can be intercepted while it is being deposited or retrieved but at other times it is considered "information" and law enforcement cannot simply request the targets' voicemails for the past six months.
Is IPTV a telecommunication service?
IPTV falls into the same category. A library could not be searched but a user who is under legally authorized wiretap can be monitored. This implies that a duplicate stream of video must be sent to law enforcement.
Today, new services never anticipated during the initial writing of CALEA would be stable commercial services and event landline replacements. The FCC defined a telecommunications service provider as any service provider that allows a user to call any public telephone (or related service) in the world. Skype, Vonage and others fall into this category for IP telephony.
Also, any network elements that replace substantial parts of the telecommunications network are considered part of the telecommunications network and must also support CALEA. Carriers using broadband to deliver phone service suddenly found themselves labeled as "service providers". Some new technologies, such as "Broadband over Powerlines" found the FCC kind. The FCC minimizing their obligations when they act simply as a bit pipe. This type of designation could help those services mature as IPTV and other IP services choose them for IP transport due to softer regulation.
Where does IPTV fit in the grand scheme of things? It is a service. It is subject to wiretap if a subscriber is deemed to be a "target" of a lawful wiretap and they are also using an IPTV
service.
In May of 2006 the FCC released it's Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order which confirmed that many broadband services (facilities-based broadband Internet access providers and providers of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). ET Docket No. 04-295. FCC 06-56) were obliged under CALEA to support wiretap services by May 14, 2007. That places
|
|
many of the cable system and other broadband systems that may carry IPTV into the category of "telecommunication carrier" and thus obliged to support CALEA.
Without a broadband network that is CALEA complainant, IPTV running on that network is in jeopardy of being shut down. It's happened before to a carrier ready to launch a Push-to-Talk system. When their advertisement hit the air, letters from the FCC and FBI hit their corporate offices desks, The letters asked if the new service would support CALEA. If not, it would not be able to launch. The service did not have CALEA capabilities therefore the carrier opted not to launch (and risk fines of $10,000 per day for every non-compliant system) and changed their offering to another type of Push-to-Talk service that already was CALEA complaint.
The requirements to support CALEA can be met in a number of ways. Building CALEA into your broadband network using a published and publicly available standard provides a "safe harbor".
A second avenue is to build a system on your own that supports the features required by the CALEA law. The standards developed by TIA, Cable Labs and others (see www.askCALEA.com) are but a single method of achieving compliance. The extra "hoop" to jump through in this approach is to get agreement with the FBI's CALEA Implementation Unit (CIU) that your solution does meet their needs.
Third, a number of third party vendors such as NeuStar and Verisign will provide CALEA service on your behalf. The only draw back here is the balancing the cost of the service against the number of wiretaps your system may be required to perform.
All in all, requests for wiretap services are small. The mandate for CALEA can be a hurdle in launching an IPTV service. However since 1994, CALEA is a required item and simply another checkbox in the project management GANTT chart similar to billing.
Early in March the FCC speed up the application process for IPTV. This combined with the number of broadband providers who have worked with CALEA to meet their May 14, 2007 deadline all signal that CALEA will not be a major hurdle for IPTV providers and vendors. The FCC appears to be doing a good job in balancing the need for reasonable entry into a market for competitors and protection of consumers by promoting competition.
Is this necessary? More Regulation?
Does the delivery of video on demand really need to support CALEA?
Yes. Every new service is considered by criminal elements as a new
potential "secure communications" system for carrying out their misdeeds.
Push to Talk became a favorite of criminal elements when it was first
introduced, as is any new service that comes out.
|
IPTV can offer everything in video from your favorite sit-com from Turkey to instructional videos for terrorists. Balancing the needs of law enforcement and the continued requirement that only a service provider can initiate a wiretap based on a court order keeps the democratic balance that American's seek. There are skeptics but there always will be. With a system in place such as J-STD-025, many watch guards of our privacy envision the ability for the government or private citizen's with intentions of criminal activities to "hack" the system.
This has not proved itself in today's market and service providers minimize the number of people with the authority to activate CALEA. But privacy advocates still worry that IPTV may become a tool of the coming "Big Brother". There may be some validity to their concerns, however, not in the United States but in China the story may be different. According to the New York Times, 20,000 police surveillance cameras are being installed along streets in Shenzhen, China. Combined with American computer software and identity cards that all citizens will be required to carry, the system will recognize the faces of police suspects and detect unusual activity. A few computer strokes enables police to read any "identity card" remotely, thus providing information about any face in the crowd. This could be a boon for IPTV systems in China, as Shenzhen is only the first of the major cities to be outfitted.
The US is expected to dip a toe into the system this year when New York police will install 100 IP cameras to monitor the license plates of cars traveling through lower Manhattan. According to most surveillance experts, this is not comparable to the Chinese system but does raise some fears to our privacy watchdogs.
To sum up our initial question, "How do CALEA obligations effect IPTV?".
The answer - If a "target" of a surveillance is using IPTV service, the provider has the obligation to duplicate the stream to law enforcement. If the IPTV service can share the CALEA system already deployed in the broadband network, compliance should be fair to easy for most IPTV element providers.
|
Ben Levi tan