Re: AT&T and VLSI Encryption device

At 09:55 1/31/95, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>Michael Sattler says:
>>
>> How does this device conform with the legislated requirement that it must
>> deliver plaintext to the government upon court-approved demand?
>
>There is no such requirement.

I was under the impression that "the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act requires equipment manufacturers and telecommunications
carriers to develop network technologies that are readily wiretapped" (from
Garfinkel's book).  Doesn't a "hardware encryption device for use in lots
of communications devices, including cell phones, PDAs, etc." seem to fall
into that category?

If it doesn't then I have no idea what CALEA is supposed to do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Michael Sattler <msattler@jungle.com>       San Francisco, California  |
Digital Jungle Consulting Services     http://www.jungle.com/msattler/ |
                                                                       |
And so these men of Indostan/ disputed long and loud/ each in his own  |
opinion/ exceeding stiff and strong/ though each was partly right/ and |
all were in the wrong! - John Godfrey Saxe                             |

Michael Sattler says:
> At 09:55 1/31/95, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> >Michael Sattler says:
> >>
> >> How does this device conform with the legislated requirement that it must
> >> deliver plaintext to the government upon court-approved demand?
> >
> >There is no such requirement.
> 
> I was under the impression that "the Communications Assistance for Law
> Enforcement Act requires equipment manufacturers and telecommunications
> carriers to develop network technologies that are readily wiretapped" (from
> Garfinkel's book).  Doesn't a "hardware encryption device for use in lots
> of communications devices, including cell phones, PDAs, etc." seem to fall
> into that category?

The manufacturers of switching equipment are supposed to make it easy
to get at individual conversations. Nothing in the act forces
customers to make the contents of the conversations comprehensable.

.pm

On Tue, 31 Jan 1995, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> The manufacturers of switching equipment are supposed to make it easy
> to get at individual conversations. Nothing in the act forces
> customers to make the contents of the conversations comprehensable.
> 
That's a loophole in the law that Congress can plug in a day.  And one of 
these days you can bet they will.

What then?

Charles Bell

Charles Bell says:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 1995, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > The manufacturers of switching equipment are supposed to make it easy
> > to get at individual conversations. Nothing in the act forces
> > customers to make the contents of the conversations comprehensable.
>
> That's a loophole in the law that Congress can plug in a day.  And one of 
> these days you can bet they will.
> 
> What then?

Then the law will be different. The question was one of what the law
is now.

Perry