WASHINGTON-The FBI and the Department of Justice last week clearly described the issue in the
fight over technical capabilities to implement the digital wiretap act. “These arguments are not new. Instead they
simply repeat and elaborate on the arguments that the commenters made in earlier rounds of this rule making,”
the government said.
Justice and the FBI should know. The agencies also repeat their arguments in reply comments
filed with the Federal Communications Commission.
The FCC is trying to determine the capabilities the
telecommunications industry must deploy in their networks to maintain law enforcement’s access to wiretap
technology. The FCC got involved in the debate after the two sides could not come to an agreement on technical
standards to implement the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
DOJ and the FBI,
representing law enforcement, consistently have said the industry’s interim standard was deficient because it did not
contain nine additional capabilities known as the punch list. Law enforcement says these nine items are necessary to
implement CALEA, but the telecommunications industry and privacy advocates claim these capabilities go beyond the
scope of CALEA. In a CALEA further notice of proposed rule making, the FCC tentatively agreed with law
enforcement on five of the items. It rejected three others and did not comment on the ninth item.
The Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association said it added something new to the debate, according to Tim Ayers, CTIA
vice president for communications. CTIA submitted cost information to show how expensive the upgrades would be.
“The technology that the FBI is requesting will increase the cost of each wireless switch by $1 million … These
outrageous cost overruns must be controlled either by the FCC or Congress before they show up as a surprise ‘wiretap
tax’ on consumers’ bills,” said CTIA President Thomas Wheeler.
Gathering cost data has been a bit tricky
because telecommunications carriers and manufacturers consider that information proprietary. CTIA asked an
independent accounting firm to gather and present the data in such a way that “no one company can be
identifiable,” Ayers said.
