Are Judge Judy, Judge Koch and Judge Wapner behind this move in the wireless industry to settle disputes in court?
Remember, it was Doug Llewelyn of People’s Court fame, who spouted the wisdom that if you find yourself at loggerheads with someone else, “don’t take the law into your own hands, take ’em to court.”
The big lawsuit these days is CTIA and PCIA vs. The Department of Justice and the FBI over implementation of the 1994 digital wiretap law.
At issue is whether CALEA discriminates against PCS licensees that deployed systems after Jan. 1, 1995, and cellular carriers that converted to digital technology after that date.
They do.
Because the Justice Department and the FBI are involved, this probably won’t be a simple case. But it should. So rather than try the case before some fancy-pants federal court, I think all parties involved should take the case before one of the TV judges.
(I confess I haven’t watched any TV judges for a good 10 years or so, but I’ve heard others sing the praises of Judge Judy).
Here are the facts:
Someone is going to have to pay for the cost of enabling U.S. law enforcement to eavesdrop on wireless digital phone conversations. Either the government picks up this tab or wireless telecom carriers pass this cost on to their customers.
It is pointless to argue whether compliance dates are realistic, whether technical specifications have been spelled out or what Congress intended.
The case should boil down to this:
It is discriminatory to ask law-abiding citizens who choose a wireless carrier that deployed digital technology after January, 1995, to bear the cost of implementing the digital wiretap law.
It is discriminatory to ask law-abiding citizens who use wireless service to bear the cost of implementing the digital wiretap law.
CALEA was designed to be a tool for law enforcement to help to keep we, the people of the United States, safe. As such, we, the people of the United States-all of us-should pay for it.
