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

Wed Jun 20 18:34:32 CDT 2007

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Harold (et al.),

Richard MacKinnon wrote:
> 
> 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?

This actually a remarkably ignorant response to our petition (as will become
clear below) that ignores disaster response reality and actively penalizes the
victims of major disasters.  What we asked for (and was turned down) was an
exemption for "temporary ad-hoc networks."  For me, the next questions are, if
the network reboots, since it's then a _new_ "temporary ad-hoc network", do we
need to get another exemption?  Also, what is the FCC's definition of a
"network"?  What if we have a local network (which doesn't connect to the
Internet at all, but is used for local connectivity)?  What if we have a local
network that has connectivity whenever an EVDO-enabled cell phone is hooked into
the network (which happened quite a bit during Katrina response)?  Do we need to
get exemption for each different network configuration?  Each time the power
goes down and it reboots?  Each time our gateway changes?  Since it's ad-hoc (by
definition), how do you centralize data collection?

*Most importantly, how does one apply for exemption when the only communications
medium is the network that you need to apply for a priori exemption for before
you can use it?*

Harold, I would very much like the FCC to answer that last question since it
goes to the core of the issue at hand -- during disaster response it's downright
idiotic that the FCC require a priori exemption of the very networks that might
be the only available communications medium to outside the disaster area.  This
was a very well-documented phenomenon during the Katrina disaster (and in our
report that was written for and presented to the FCC) and I would like the FCC
to explain how deployers of these networks should get around the Catch-22 they
have created.  Either that or I would like the FCC to go on record stating that
in cases where no other communications network exists, it is illegal for
emergency network deployers to build the emergency networks necessary to
communicate with the outside world unless they first get "case-by-case approval"
to deploy these networks and that in cases where no other communications network
exists, it is illegal to deploy these networks in the first place.

I'd like to hold some toes to the fire on this one because the ruling simply
doesn't make sense given post-disaster on-the-ground real-world situations.

- --Sascha

> --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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGebmIr4ujbhper10RAoBRAJ9v8JASD3A707Y1pwAX/rTONSzwowCfYg9D
xgXKYhnMFL1Pvk2F9oa3n2g=
=kRdy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----