Senators question whether CALEA is necessary for VoIP

Several members of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee today expressed doubt about the need for voice-over-IP providers to comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which has been of questionable value to law enforcement but a significant expense to providers.

Laura Parsky, deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division of the U.S. Department of Justice, expressed fears that the VoIP legislation proposed by Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) that does not require VoIP application providers to adhere to CALEA would cause the burgeoning technology to “become a haven for criminals, terrorists and spies.”

If VoIP providers are not required to give law enforcement CALEA tools—developed to give law enforcement real-time surveillance of voice calls over the public switched telephone network—public safety and national security will be “imperiled,” Parsky testified.

“[VoIP] must not be allowed to shield criminal activities,” said Parsky.

Parsky said VoIP calls should be subject to CALEA because they are substitutes for traditional telephone services. But Sununu noted that that criminals have other ways to communicate that are not subject to CALEA, such as e-mail and instant messaging—technologies that are classified as “information services.”

“Do you think terrorists aren’t smart enough to…use e-mail [for communications]?” Sununu asked.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) also was pointed in his questioning of Parsky, asking her to cite examples of “what you can’t do now” in terms of surveillance of VoIP calls without CALEA. Parsky said law enforcement can conduct surveillance, but not necessarily in real time, which could cost law enforcement valuable time during an investigation.

Wyden was not impressed.

“What you are looking for now is a remedy to a problem that has not been documented,” Wyden said. “What you have told us is that there is no problem now.”

Parsky replied that many providers have cooperated with law enforcement but others have not. When Wyden and Sununu asked for the names of the uncooperative companies, Parsky said she did not have them.

The hearing, which also included testimony from industry representatives, was conducted as the Senate decides how to proceed with Sununu’s legislation. Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the expected proliferation of VoIP calling during the next year means “we’ve got to move forward on this issue.” McCain expressed doubt that the Senate would pass the bill this year but said he would like to see the bill marked up and allow the committee to improve it.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said there is a “sense of urgency” surrounding the Sununu bill in light of UNE rules being eliminated, because VoIP may be the best alternative to ensure competition in the wireline voice market.

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said he would like to see Congress quickly clarify that VoIP is under federal jurisdiction and not subject to state regulation.