From Spam Daily News
"This is totally ridiculous. I can't believe you're making this
argument," Judge Harry T. Edwards told Jacob Lewis, an associate
general counsel with the Federal Communications Commission.
A U.S. appeals court panel challenged the Bush administration Friday
over new rules making it easier for the police and the FBI to wiretap
phone calls made over the Internet.
One of the three judges hearing the case told the government that its
courtroom arguments were "gobbledygook" and suggested its lawyer
return to his office and "have a big chuckle."
Judge Edwards criticized the U.S. government's demand that
universities install wiretapping capabilities in their computer
networks, saying he sees no evidence that Congress intended the
FCC officials last year indicated that their requirement would lead to
the installation of new switches throughout university networks to
monitor individual computers, said Terry Hartle, senior vice president
of the American Council on Education. That would cost colleges an
estimated $7 billion.
The FCC recently clarified its position, saying universities only need
to establish points where police can monitor messages coming in and
out of the campus network, as long as the equipment includes
authentication technology that reliably identifies each computer user,
That alternative may be just as costly, since no such authentication
technology yet exists, said Douglas Carlson, executive director of
computing services at New York University, who is advising the
American Council on Education in its case.
"Depending on the data that needs to be collected at the gateway, it
could still require major changes at the university networks and
systems," he said.
Aside from the costs, the universities don't accept that they are
subject to the 1994 law or want an outcome that would find otherwise,
The FCC has set a May 14, 2007 deadline for compliance.
The FCC decision prompted an appeal by universities and libraries. The
groups, including the American Library Association and Association of
American Universities, challenged the agency's authority to extend
such requirements to high-speed Internet services.
Judge Edwards has taught at the Michigan, Harvard, Duke, Pennsylvania,
Georgetown, and New York University law schools. His most important
publication, "The Growing Disjunction Between Legal Education and the
Legal Profession," from Michigan Law Review in 1992, has been the
source of extensive comment, discussion, and debate among legal
scholars and practitioners in the United States. Critics said the new
rules were too broad and inconsistent with the intent of Congress when
it passed the surveillance law, which excluded categories of companies
described as information service providers. They say the FCC has long
included broadband Internet in that category.
Judge Edwards agreed. And he scoffed at the FCC's argument that
broadband Internet services included a separate telecommunications
"component" that made it subject to the wiretapping requirements.
"Your argument makes no sense," Edwards told Lewis.
"I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear," Lewis said.
"You're making yourself very clear. That's the problem," Edwards
"Congress intended to cover services that were functionally
equivalent" to traditional telephones, Lewis said.
"There's nothing to suggest that in the statute," Edwards replied.
"Stating that doesn't make it so."
The panel appeared to be more willing to support the FCC's argument
that Internet-phone services - which allow Internet users to make and
receive calls from fixed-line phones - might be covered under the law.
One of the other two justices on the panel, David Sentelle, expressed
more sympathy for the government's argument, especially regarding the
idea of extending the surveillance requirements to Internet phone
service. But Sentelle also sounded skeptical about the FCC's position
on broadband services.
The third judge, Janice Brown, did not question the lawyers.
The court's decision is expected within several months.
Federal agencies foretell a dark world of evil benefiting from limited
wiretapping laws. The Department of Justice said leaving out VoIP would
deliver "a surveillance safe haven for criminals and terrorists who make use
of new communications services."