[90914] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: voip calea interfaces
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fred Baker)
Tue Jun 20 16:42:59 2006
In-Reply-To: <449841F4.6080600@ehsco.com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:42:10 -0700
To: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Jun 20, 2006, at 11:44 AM, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> This is interesting approach. For one, it seems to cover a lot more
> technology than CALEA requires. I suppose that is an artifact of
> trying to
> serve multiple countries' requiresments in a single architecture.
Actually, no.
IANAL
US laws include Title III of the 1968 OCCSS, 1978 FISA, and the 1994
CALEA, with updates related to PATRIOT. The US is unusual in this
respect; most of the countries that have published law or regulation
relating to lawful intercept simply state that the police have
authority to intercept any communications a surveillance subject
participates in. As such Cisco implemented the PacketCable solution
for CALEA a while, and then went on to meet the requirements of our
various customers that have IP data intercept requirements.
You might find the following of interest.It's more about e-911, but
if you want to read forensic access in as well, the shoe fits.
http://blogs.cisco.com/networkers/2006/06/
deploying_emergency_services_e.html
It's my opinion. Cisco is welcome to espouse it as well if it wants to.
