uni says:
The bill in its draft from provides that common carriers who do not provide the encryption device are exempt. The meaning on its face is that common carriers are gaining some immunity to sanctions if they did not provide the customer with the encryption he or she is using and instead provide a means for the government to compell the common carrier to produce in the clear that which they caused to be encrypted.
The practical effect the bills has is to impose on common carriers that
manufacture encryption devices, a duty to provide to the government those
conversations which are made with said devices over their lines.
If AT&T manufactures some encryption device, and I use it over AT&T lines, one reading of the bill would suggest that AT&T is now RESPONSIBLE for decrypting this if the government should request it.
The Act does exempt carriers from providing backdoors in the encrytion it *doesn't* provide; it makes no mention of any exemption or obligation for *manufacturers.* Here's an excerpt:
(5) 'intercept' shall have the same meaning as set forth in subsection 2510(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that with regard to a common carrier's transmission of a communication encrypted by a subscriber, the common carrier shall not be responsible for ensuring the government agency's ability to acquire the plaintext of the communications content, unless the encryption was provided by the common carrier and the common carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication;
Manufacturers are obliged to make available equipment to the common carriers "compliant with ... this Act." Even if manufacturers are not (like AT&T) also common carriers. The Act does not elaborate on the manufacturers role in producing "compliant" equipment, nor on their responsiblities towards the "provisions of this Act." An interpretation could be that ALL EQUIPMENT must facilitate the decryption of plaintext under court order. After all, the Act does require common carriers to provide backdoors in any ecnryption they provide.
"(d) Cooperation of support service providers and equipment manufacturers. Common carriers shall consult, as necessary, in a timely fashion with appropriate providers of common carrier support services and telecommunications equipment manufacturers for the purpose of identifying any services or equipment, including hardware and software, that may require modification so as to permit compliance with the provisions of this Act. A provider of common carrier support services or a telecommunications equipment manufacturer shall make available to a common carrier on a timely and priority basis, and at a reasonable cost, any support service or equipment, including hardware or software, which may be required so as to permit compliance with the provisions of this Act.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "What is civilisation rishab@doe.ernet.in, rishab@dxm.ernet.in but a ribonucleic Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 hangover?" H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------