[CWN-Summit] Re: CWN-Summit Digest, Vol 21, Issue 1

Tue May 2 12:44:33 CDT 2006

CALEA doesn't change the law on who can get a warrant.  It just means 
that you need to build your network in a way that can be tapped.  I'm 
not familiar enough with the law on who gets to listen based on a 
warrant to be able to answer the question of whether private 
companies can listen.

Sorry,
Harold

At 01:26 PM 5/2/2006, Dharma Dailey wrote:

>Question for Harold regarding CALEA:  With the increasing outsourcing
>of key government functions who exactly will be doing the tapping?  Is
>it possible, for example, one division of Haliburton will be listening
>in on conversations of say of an activist-heavy consulting group while
>perhaps another division seeks contracts that directly compete with
>said consulting group?  Are there any stipulations preventing
>outsourcing of this kind?  Is there any recourse if this kind of
>non-governmental but governmental espionage takes place?
>
>-Dharma Dailey
>
>On May 2, 2006, at 1:02 PM, cwn-summit-request at lists.cuwireless.net
>wrote:
>
>>Send CWN-Summit mailing list submissions to
>>         cwn-summit at lists.cuwireless.net
>>
>>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>         http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/cwn-summit
>>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>         cwn-summit-request at lists.cuwireless.net
>>
>>You can reach the person managing the list at
>>         cwn-summit-owner at lists.cuwireless.net
>>
>>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>than "Re: Contents of CWN-Summit digest..."
>>
>>
>>Today's Topics:
>>
>>    1. Blogs Be Damned,  Newsletter Article on National Community
>>       Wireless Summit (Dharma Dailey)
>>    2. Stevens Bill on Community Broadband (Harold Feld)
>>    3. Stevens Bill on Wireless (Harold Feld)
>>    4. Upcoming CALEA Order from FCC tomorrow,   Court fight on Friday
>>       (Harold Feld)
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Message: 1
>>Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 17:50:26 -0400
>>From: Dharma Dailey <dharma at prometheusradio.org>
>>Subject: [CWN-Summit] Blogs Be Damned,  Newsletter Article on National
>>         Community Wireless Summit
>>To: basement at prometheusradio.org
>>Cc: cwn-summit at lists.cuwireless.net, joshua at mediatank.org,      Aaron
>>         Huslage <huslage at GMail.com>
>>Message-ID: <23ab2a8f69ad5282189f513dd9d2febd at prometheusradio.org>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>>
>>Here is the unedited article on the Summit that's going in the
>>Prometheus newsletter:
>>
>>
>>Imagine and Implement Community Wireless Summit 2006
>>   Shows Community Wireless at a "Critical Juncture"
>>-by Dharma Dailey
>>
>>
>>People from far flung Community Wireless projects - Seattle to New
>>Orleans- San Diego to New York- joined  Developers, Policy Wonks, and
>>Community organizers for a weekend in early April in St. Charles, MO to
>>kvetch, cabal, and connoiter on the future of Community Wireless.
>>Plugged as the National Wireless Summit, of the 200 participants there
>>was a strong international representation with several participants
>>hailing from Canada, Ghana, India and Europe.  Together under one roof
>>strategizing for "Digital Inclusion," the Summit was a confluence for
>>people who swim in the Media Reform movement and those who work in
>>Community Technology circles.
>>
>>Noting that the Whole U.S. is in Danger of Being on the Wrong Side of
>>Digital Divide-our communications systems are increasingly surpassed by
>>country after country- the summit was awash with still even more
>>stories of communities taking their communication futures into their
>>own hands.
>>   Wireless internet is still a rapidly growing technology. Our techie
>>friends are still working hard to make it more reliable, easier to use
>>and maintain, and more flexible for all sorts of applications and
>>terrains.  While some developers on the ground are working on goodies
>>like developing better antennas, several participants are involved in
>>projects that promote local, site-specific content geared toward
>>community use such as interactive descriptions of murals and altars in
>>San Diego's historic and radical Chicano Park. "WIFI Dog" is one such
>>tool that generated a lot of excitement in the crowd because it make it
>>easy to develop and maintain local content.
>>Sustainability -  Community Wireless Moves Closer to Municipal
>>Wireless.
>>Gone are the days when Community Wireless meant exclusively a bunch of
>>friends throwing up a network in their backyard.  Much of Summit
>>discussion was devoted to Muni-Wireless.  Cities big and small, urban
>>and rural areas, state-side and outside are finding that they can build
>>their own state-of-the-art communications systems that are "revenue
>>neutral"-  meaning the money spent on building and maintaining their
>>network is made up for by what they save in better communication.  The
>>bonus is that municipal systems can become the backbone for other
>>communication projects in the community.  This makes muni-wireless "a
>>no-brainer."
>>One speaker, Jonathan Baltin, gave an example of what it would cost for
>>Atlanta, GA to put in a muni-wireless network.  It would cost
>>$25,000,000 for the city to hook up every citizen in Atlanta with
>>wireless.  Today, those with internet service in Atlanta pay
>>$125,000,000 for it, but, Baltin says, every dollar spent locally can
>>roll over 7 times.  So putting in muni-network is like investing
>>$750,000,000 in the local economy of Atlanta.
>>
>>   The role of community in determining their communication destiny
>>today, may mean building their own networks, or creating greater
>>accountability for corporate endeavors, or getting involved in the
>>development of a municipal project.
>>
>>Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane FEMA
>>Several people who are working on  or worked on communication systems
>>in the Gulf region post-Hurricane-were in the house.  Lots of
>>discussion is taking place in the Wireless community on ways that a
>>rapid response "neighbors helping neighbors" emergency service for
>>community wireless could be developed that builds on the work that is
>>taking place and has taken place in the Gulf.
>>
>>Political Action -- "a critical juncture within a critical juncture
>>within a critical juncture."
>>In the opening plenary, Robert McChesney described his view that right
>>now we are at a critical juncture when radical change of communications
>>is possible because:
>>1.  We are in a deep political crisis in our democracy.
>>2.  Our media system is in a  "deep severe crisis"  Professional
>>journalism has collapsed.
>>3.  The underlying technology of communication has changed.
>>
>>
>>A critical juncture within a critical juncture the future of the
>>internet.
>>Much on everyone's minds is "net neutrality" - that is will the
>>Internet eventually be wheedled down to become something like
>>Television before there was cable- when those who owned the network got
>>to decide what the content was that went over the network.
>>
>>A critical juncture within a critical juncture within a critical
>>juncture.
>>Time Warner, Cox, and the Baby  Bells tried unsuccessfully to kill muni
>>and community wireless by getting laws passed in several states that
>>made it difficult or illegal for people to put the "comm" in their
>>communities.  Now they're changing their tune.  The same companies who
>>tried to outlaw community wireless are bidding on municipal contracts.
>>Community and municipal wireless could be co-opted and enveloped by the
>>big guys. who will try hard to get their foot in the door and slam it
>>shut behind them.  Long before the potential for high-quality low-cost
>>communication becomes within everyone's reach, the promise of wireless
>>could fade away.  Thus many groups within the media reform and
>>community technology worlds are coming together to fight aggressively
>>on behalf of community and municipal wireless.  We activists need to
>>articulate exactly what we want from our communications systems
>>irrespective of who builds them.  We need to be prepared to create
>>accountability to community under a variety of  ownership-control
>>schemes. State by state campaigns are being planned right now, along
>>with an active plan for DC.  As always, methinks the best plan of
>>action is getting out their and building your own damn community
>>network.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         PAGE 1
>>
>>
>>
>>-------------- next part --------------
>>A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>>Name: not available
>>Type: text/enriched
>>Size: 6467 bytes
>>Desc: not available
>>Url :
>>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/cwn-summit/attachments/ 
>>20060501/f848441f/attachment-0001.bin
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Message: 2
>>Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 10:16:26 -0400
>>From: Harold Feld <hfeld at mediaaccess.org>
>>Subject: [CWN-Summit] Stevens Bill on Community Broadband
>>To: National Summit on Community Wireless Networking Participant
>>         E-mail List     <cwn-summit at lists.cuwireless.net>
>>Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20060502100511.03af7480 at mail.his.com>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>>
>>One of the few bright spots in last week's fight over the
>>Communications Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE) was the
>>pro-munibroadband provision.  The provision would both prohibit
>>states from preventing municipalities from deploying broadband
>>systems and repeal such laws in states where they exist.  This
>>provision survived an effort to eliminate it and an effort to
>>grandfather existing prohibitions.
>>
>>The "Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act
>>of 2006," introduced yesterday by Commerce Committee Chair Senator
>>Stevens, and co-sponsored by Inoue, the ranking Democrat,  also
>>addresses munibroadband systems.  Unfortunately, it does serious
>>damage to the ability of local governments to offer broadband
>>services directly.  Title V, "Municipal Broadband," mirrors the House
>>language, but only with regard to "public-private partnerships"
>>(Philadelphia would fall into this catagory).  With respect to purely
>>public provided services, such as those offered by St. Cloud, the
>>bill would require local governments to publish a notice of intent
>>and give private sector providers a right of first refusal (similar
>>to the existing law in Pennsylvania).
>>
>>This presents a big problem for a large number of reasons, not least
>>of which because a local government may chose to provide such
>>services for the purpose of competing with a local monopoly provider
>>or duopoly.
>>
>>Harold
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Message: 3
>>Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 10:18:54 -0400
>>From: Harold Feld <hfeld at mediaaccess.org>
>>Subject: [CWN-Summit] Stevens Bill on Wireless
>>To: National Summit on Community Wireless Networking Participant
>>         E-mail List     <cwn-summit at lists.cuwireless.net>
>>Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20060502101630.037187f8 at mail.his.com>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>>
>>The only bright spot in the Stevens bill is Title VI, wireless
>>innovation networks.  This provision requires the FCC to open the
>>television "white spaces" to unlicensed use that does not interfere
>>with broadcast TV or public safety.
>>
>>I would not support the bill for this provision alone, given
>>everything else bad in it.  But I do recognize the one good provision.
>>
>>Harold
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Message: 4
>>Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 10:04:59 -0400
>>From: Harold Feld <hfeld at mediaaccess.org>
>>Subject: [CWN-Summit] Upcoming CALEA Order from FCC tomorrow,   Court
>>         fight on Friday
>>To: National Summit on Community Wireless Networking Participant
>>         E-mail List     <cwn-summit at lists.cuwireless.net>
>>Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20060502094906.03b07ea8 at mail.his.com>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>>
>>Tomorrow, the FCC will adopt its Second Report and Order on the
>>Communications Assitance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).  CALEA
>>requires all providers of communications services to construct their
>>networks in a way that allows law enforcement agencies to monitor
>>individual converssations/messages (they still need a warrant, but
>>you have to build the network in such a way that it is possible to
>>perform the wiretap).
>>
>>Last summer, the FCC issued an order applying CALEA to all providers
>>of broadband access, on the grounds that broadband access constituted
>>a "substantial replacement" of traditional phone services because it
>>enabled communications in a way that allowed one to dispense with
>>traditional phone services.
>>
>>The legality of the FCC's First Order is pending before the DC
>>Cir.  Media Access Project (my employer) has been "of counsel" to the
>>Center for Democracy and Technology which, with a coalition of
>>others, has challenged the authority of the FCC to apply CALEA to
>>information services (as it classes broadband).  That case has been
>>briefed on accelerated schedule and will be argued before a panel of
>>the D.C. Cir. on Friday morning, May 5.
>>
>>The legal challenge in court, however, does not stay the FCC's
>>Order.  ISPs have 18 months from the release of the Order (last
>>August) to become "CALEA compliant," which is a neat trick because no
>>one knows what the heck that means until the FCC issues its Second
>>Order.
>>
>>The Second Order will address several issues left hanging in the
>>First Order.  1) What does "CALEA compliant" mean? 2) Should certain
>>classes of ISP be exempt from CALEA, or subject to a less burdensome
>>"CALEA-lite" regime? and 3) Does CALEA apply to "private networks,"
>>networks that are designed primarily for internal intranet
>>communication.  Further, if users of private networks can reach the
>>internet, should responsibility for CALEA compliance fall on the
>>private network operator or on the ISP selling the bachaul?
>>
>>I have argued that community mesh networks constitute "private
>>networks" within any rational meaning of the statute.  EDUCAUSE and
>>other organizations representing institutions of higher education
>>have made similar arguments with regard to campus-wide systems.  The
>>Department of Justice has vigorously opposed exempting private
>>networks or providing relief to any class of broadband access
>>providers.
>>
>>I will keep folks here apprised of what happens and what possible
>>next steps the community (either collectively or as individuals) may
>>wish to consider based on what happens this week.
>>
>>Harold
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>CWN-Summit mailing list
>>CWN-Summit at lists.cuwireless.net
>>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/cwn-summit
>>http://www.communitywirelesssummit.org
>>http://www.cuwireless.net
>>
>>End of CWN-Summit Digest, Vol 21, Issue 1
>>*****************************************
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWN-Summit mailing list
>CWN-Summit at lists.cuwireless.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/cwn-summit