|
|
article page | 1
| 2 | 3 | 4 |
In most of the
democratic countries throughout
the world these two surveillance
capabilities, one designed for
domestic law enforcement and the
other for gathering foreign intelligence,
were historically separated and
administered by different courts.
In the US, for example, surveillance
for domestic law enforcement is
overseen by state or federal courts
responsible for criminal prosecution
whereas surveillance for gathering
|
|
Over
85% of all intercepts executed worldwide
are for communications over a mobile
or portable device.
|
|
|
approach (RFC 2804 – IETF
Policy on Wiretapping). The
Netherlands came up with
a standard for IP interception
and championed a framework
for electronic surveillance
when it held the EU presidency
in 2004. Italy leads the
world in intercepts per capita,
shortly ahead of the Netherlands,
and
|
|
|
|
foreign intelligence, or “counterintelligence,” is
handled by a special Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court called FISC.
During the initial
growth period of the Internet, with
e-mail and World Wide Web (WWW) usage
rising dramatically, specialized Internet
Protocol (IP) surveillance solutions
were developed to support evidence
gathering for prosecuting early forms
of electronic or “cyber” crimes.
During the 1990s, child pornography,
exploitation, and fraud represented
typical cases that occasionally required
use of “packet sniffers” for
the collection of evidence only available
from IP networks.
The passing of (CALEA)
in October 1994 and similar laws enacted
in Europe catalyzed the market for
third party lawful intercept and surveillance
solutions. Amendments to existing laws
to support packet-mode communications
increased the size of the solutions
market with the first “converged” LI
solutions becoming commercially available
by 2002.
Following the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, additional
legislation was enacted in many Western
countries, and these emerging mandates
have largely driven the current evolution
of the market.
In general, surveillance
mandates across Europe are more rigorous
than those currently enacted in the
US with a bias towards a standards-based,
best practices
|
|
corruption inquiries are perceived
as the primary driver for this
high degree of activity.
What’s
on the horizon?
Work continues
within CALEA and elsewhere as operators
are increasingly being asked to improve
their environments to enable rapid
responses to government requests
for voice and data, even in the face
of other regulatory pressures.
In the U.S., the
latest figures available from the
Department of Justice show that 1.2m
requests to tap telephones and email
addresses were made in 2005, and
while most involved requests for
historic telephone call record data,
there were 48,000 requests for real-time
call data and 2,600 intercepts of
communications. These figures exclude
additional activity in the U.S. from
the controversial warrant-less requests
and the work of the National Security
Agency.
Data reported by
various government agencies requesting
lawfully authorized intercepts illustrates
an important underlying trend: over
85% of all intercepts executed worldwide
are for communications over a mobile
or portable device. Thus roving
surveillance is of utmost importance,
and as operator networks for converged
service providers grow in complexity
with the deployment of next-generation
infrastructure,
|
article
page | 1 |
2 | 3 | 4 |
|
|
|
