[CWN-Summit] Re: ad hoc network CALEA waiver

Richard MacKinnon rich at lessnetworks.com
Wed Jun 20 13:03:45 CDT 2007


Interesting.  Practically speaking, how long does it take to  review 
requests for exemptions of these types of

networks (and the volunteers who construct them) on a case-by-case basis."  For instance, the case of Katrina, how long would it have taken to review the case--whether or not they had actually decided in CUWiN's favor?

--r

>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:29:31 -0400
>From: Harold Feld <hfeld at mediaaccess.org>
>Subject: [CWN-Summit] Some old CALEA Business (or, Somedays,	the bear
>	gets you)
>To: National Summit on Community Wireless Networking Participant
>	E-mail List	<cwn-summit at lists.cuwireless.net>
>Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20070619160745.03d297d8 at mail.his.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>Back when the FCC had its rulemaking on the Katrina Report, I filed 
>on behalf of CUWIN and others a request that the Commission declare 
>that ad hoc networks set up for disaster relief are not subject to 
>CALEA.  Last week, the Commission issued its Report and Order, 
>denying this request (but leaving the door open).
>
>I append the relevant langauge below.
>
>Harold
>___________________
>
>
>1.                  CALEA Exemption for Temporary Ad Hoc 
>Networks.  Champaign Urbana Wireless Network et al asks that the 
>Commission clarify that volunteers who build ad hoc networks in 
>response to an emergency need not comply with CALEA.  They state 
>that, in response to Hurricane Katrina, volunteers created numerous 
>wireless networks to provide needed Internet connectivity for Red 
>Cross shelters and others in areas where Katrina destroyed or 
>substantially degraded existing infrastructure.  On completing 
>construction of these ad hoc networks, the volunteers turned these 
>networks over to local operators and move on to help others.
>
>2.                  Champaign Urbana et al states that many of these 
>ad hoc networks remained in operation for months and may still remain 
>in operation today.  They state that volunteers who generally did not 
>maintain contact or provide any services for these networks once they 
>turn them over to local operators.  They state that these volunteers 
>are not telecommunications carriers to whom CALEA generally applies 
>and that these volunteers do not provide these services for hire.  In 
>addition, they state that these volunteers do not fall under the 
>"substantial replacement provision" of the Act.
>
>3.                  They request that the Commission establish a 
>blanket waiver for ad hoc wireless networks created in response to a 
>state of emergency; and that any liability that might arise for 
>failure to comply with CALEA if the networks remain in operation 
>after the emergency would not lie with those who created the network 
>so long as they turned control over the network to others.  To the 
>extent the Commission determines that these volunteers are subject to 
>CALEA, Champaign Urbana et al requests that the Commission provide a 
>general waiver pursuant to its authority to exempt any "class or 
>category of telecommunications carrier."
>
>4.                  We do not have sufficient information in the 
>record to justify grant of a blanket waiver as Champaign Urbana 
>suggests.  First it is not clear whether Champaign Urbana's request 
>is for a blanket waiver of ad hoc temporary networks in all cases of 
>emergencies, including those involving terrorist attacks.  If so, 
>such a waiver could actually impede law enforcement and thus hinder 
>the purposes of CALEA.  Moreover, we note that CALEA exemptions may 
>only be granted after formal consultation with the U.S. Attorney 
>General and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (which formally 
>has been designated by the Attorney General to handle CALEA 
>obligations) has previously opposed granting blanket CALEA 
>exemptions.  For these reasons, we decline to issue a blanket waiver 
>for these types of networks.  Rather, we think the appropriate 
>approach would be to review requests for exemptions of these types of 
>networks (and the volunteers who construct them) on a case-by-case basis.
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/cwn-summit/attachments/20070619/d39a75e7/attachment-0001.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 34, Issue 11
>******************************************
>
>  
>



More information about the CWN-Summit mailing list