Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You asked:

"Are major companies based or operating in the US allowed to provide secure email and/or data storage without options for lawful surveillance from law enforcement?"

Compare 47 USC §1002(b)(3):

A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government’s ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication.

Also, (b)(1):

This subchapter does not authorize any law enforcement agency or officer—

(A) to require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations to be adopted by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services; or

(B) to prohibit the adoption of any equipment, facility, service, or feature by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services.

Finally, (b)(2):

The [interception capability] requirements of [...] this section do not apply to [...] information services [...]




Microsoft is not a telecom carrier.


Actually, it is. Microsoft provides VOIP services, and the FCC and courts have held that that makes it a telecom carrier for the purposes of CALEA.


I agree that the pure VoIP parts of Skype should not be interpreted as telecommunications services under CALEA. I think we agree; I'm quoting these provisions to argue that Microsoft does not have any interception capability mandates for IP-to-IP calls under CALEA.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: