Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search


Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

jr_12809_9780195367195_bnr.JPG

ad-logo5.jpg

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • alex on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • Dan Culley on Perils of a “Lightly Regulated” Insurance Market

    • Frank Pasquale on Financial Innovation?

    • Robyn A on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • Bruce Boyden on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • Larry Rosenthal on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • Howard Wasserman on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • Adam on Financial Innovation?

    • Amy on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • cjmajor on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • cj on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • Howard Wasserman on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • Colin Miller on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • concerned mom on The Lori Drew Trial: Verdict

    • A Commenter on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

  •  

    Site Meter

Making Universities Pay for Government Surveillance

posted by Daniel Solove

computer-surveillance.jpg.gifIn 1994, Congress passed a law called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which requires telecommunication providers to build wiretapping and surveillance capabilities for law enforcement officials into their new technologies.

A recent rulemaking by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) significanty expands the reach of CALEA beyond telephone companies and ISPs:

The federal government, vastly extending the reach of an 11-year-old law, is requiring hundreds of universities, online communications companies and cities to overhaul their Internet computer networks to make it easier for law enforcement authorities to monitor e-mail and other online communications.

The action, which the government says is intended to help catch terrorists and other criminals, has unleashed protests and the threat of lawsuits from universities, which argue that it will cost them at least $7 billion while doing little to apprehend lawbreakers. . . .

The order, issued by the Federal Communications Commission in August and first published in the Federal Register last week, extends the provisions of a 1994 wiretap law not only to universities, but also to libraries, airports providing wireless service and commercial Internet access providers.

It also applies to municipalities that provide Internet access to residents, be they rural towns or cities like Philadelphia and San Francisco, which have plans to build their own Net access networks.

Shouldn’t the government be paying these costs? Why should the government be imposing this quasi-tax on those providing communications services?

According to the article:

If law enforcement officials obtain a court order to monitor the Internet communications of someone at a university, the current approach is to work quietly with campus officials to single out specific sites and install the equipment needed to carry out the surveillance. This low-tech approach has worked well in the past, officials at several campuses said.

But the federal law would apply a high-tech approach, enabling law enforcement to monitor communications at campuses from remote locations at the turn of a switch.

It would require universities to re-engineer their networks so that every Net access point would send all communications not directly onto the Internet, but first to a network operations center where the data packets could be stitched together into a single package for delivery to law enforcement, university officials said.

It is certainly true that new technology can erode the government’s ability to engage in surveillance. It can also enhance the government’s surveillance capabilities too. Setting aside the issue of the merits of the government surveillance, the issue of who pays for it is also a very important one. Placing the costs on those developing or supplying the technology can severely hinder the development of technology and its use. And saddling such a large financial burden on educational institutions at a time of rapidly rising education costs strikes me as very unwise and troublesome.


 October 22, 2005 at 5:29 pm   Posted in: Privacy, Privacy (Electronic Surveillance), Privacy (Law Enforcement), Technology   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (2)

  1. tim - October 24, 2005 at 2:37 pm

    The generalized position of opposing this “quasi-tax” is to me agreeable.

    However your closing statement (”saddling such a large financial burden on educational institutions at a time of rapidly rising education costs”) suggests your objection is really an agenda to exempt “Universities”, and begs questions such as; When were “educational institutions not at a time of rapidly rising education costs”? How much governmental subsidies do “educational institutions” beg for and receive? Is this also a time of rapidly rising education subsidies?

    Better to hold to the more general argument than to cite “educational institutions” who I dare say enjoy more political influence than the ISP industry!!!

  2. SIVACRACY.NET: Opinions, Rants, and Obsessions of Siva Vaidhyanathan and his Friends and Family - October 25, 2005 at 2:48 pm

    More on the Governmnent Bugging Every University

    Here is Dan Solove writing about the ridiculous cost of this surveillance program. And here is civil libertarian hero Dan Gilmore: The NYT covered this story, on the front page, too. But somehow it was all about “Colleges Protest Call…

Comments are closed for this entry.


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Michael O'Shea

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Robert Hillman
Kevin Johnson
Sarah Lawsky
Robert Percival
Jenia Turner






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress