Why not use a from/to etc detection in .cfg (using database...) to trigger a remote proxy through the requesting agency They then have the capture issue and you have no monitor or delivery issues? Might require conditions of their placement of a proxy? (but is their problem) Regards Chris -----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Java Rockx Sent: 26 February 2005 14:29 To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Subject: [Serusers] RTP Wiretapping Hi All. I'm located in the US and would like to comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) that Congress passed which basically says that VoIP providers should have the ability to wiretap conversations for the FBI upon request. I use mediaproxy for NAT traversal. So my question is how can I be CALEA compliant? I assume I should be able to modify mediaproxy to write RTP streams to disk, but I'm unclear on how to "mix" both sides of the conversation. Can anyone help with a suggestion? Regards, Paul _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 25/02/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.2 - Release Date: 28/02/2005

Paul: This may be a little off topic but what are the legal issues you or your company face with CALEA? I'd be surprised if the integrity of the mediaproxy wouldn't become an issue if such a case went to Court. Have you look into this? Just curious, Steve Java Rockx wrote: -- ISC Network Engineering The University of Pennsylvania 3401 Walnut Street, Suite 221A Philadelphia, PA 19104 voice: 215-573-8396 215-746-8001 fax: 215-898-9348 sip:blairs@upenn.edu _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

Jiri: It is not uncommon for Lawyers in the US to question the method by which evidence was gathered. They try to create "reasonable doubt" about the charges against their client in order to get a case dismissed. I was involved in a case a few years ago, regarding computer technology but not VoIP, and this is exactly the approach the Lawyers took. I have not personally looked at CALEA requirements. I may have to in the future and I was just asking about mediaproxy's ability to accurately associate a recording with a phone number, date/time, location, etc.

Does this help? -Steve Jiri Kuthan wrote: >Steve, > >I am having a language difficulty -- what do you mean by mediaproxy's >_intergrity_? > >Thanks! > >-jiri > >At 03:51 PM 3/2/2005, Steve Blair wrote: > > > >>Paul: >> >>This may be a little off topic but what are the legal issues you or your >>company face with CALEA? I'd be surprised if the integrity of the >>mediaproxy wouldn't become an issue if such a case went to Court. >>Have you look into this? >> >>Just curious, >>Steve >> >>Java Rockx wrote: >> >> >> >>>I was thinking about having a group called "spy" in the grp table and >>>anyone with this ACL would be sent to a modified mediaproxy that would >>>capture the RTP. >>> >>>User that don't have the "spy" ACL would be handled normally and if >>>NAT traversal is needed then use an unmodified media proxy. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Paul >>> >>> >>>On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 08:00:24 -0000, Chris <ser(a)cannes.f9.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Why not use a from/to etc detection in .cfg (using database...) >>>>to trigger a remote proxy through the requesting agency >>>>They then have the capture issue >>>>and you have no monitor or delivery issues? >>>>Might require conditions of their placement of a proxy? >>>>(but is their problem) >>>>Regards >>>>Chris >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On >>>>Behalf Of Java Rockx >>>>Sent: 26 February 2005 14:29 >>>>To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>>>Subject: [Serusers] RTP Wiretapping >>>> >>>>Hi All. >>>> >>>>I'm located in the US and would like to comply with the Communications >>>>Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) that Congress passed which >>>>basically says that VoIP providers should have the ability to wiretap >>>>conversations for the FBI upon request. >>>> >>>>I use mediaproxy for NAT traversal. So my question is how can I be >>>>CALEA compliant? I assume I should be able to modify mediaproxy to >>>>write RTP streams to disk, but I'm unclear on how to "mix" both sides >>>>of the conversation. >>>> >>>>Can anyone help with a suggestion? >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Paul >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Serusers mailing list >>>>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >>>> >>>>-- >>>>No virus found in this incoming message. >>>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >>>>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 25/02/2005 >>>> >>>>-- >>>>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >>>>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.2 - Release Date: 28/02/2005 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Serusers mailing list >>>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >>> >>> >>-- >>ISC Network Engineering >>The University of Pennsylvania >>3401 Walnut Street, Suite 221A >>Philadelphia, PA 19104 >> >> >>voice: 215-573-8396 215-746-8001 >> >>fax: 215-898-9348 >> >>sip:blairs@upenn.edu >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Serusers mailing list >>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >> > >-- >Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/

The challenge with this approach is how you make intercepted calls non-distinguishable from regular calls. The intercepted party may watch signaling and notice service provider's IP addresses. Also, the quality may degrade through use of RTP relay. A possible option is to ingore this problem. Other option would be to implement interception in edge routers. Obviously, it is not an easy one. -jiri At 01:16 PM 3/2/2005, Java Rockx wrote: -- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

Jiri, Do you think ser will eventually acquire wiretapping capabilities? Regards, Paul On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:18:32 -0500, Terry Mac Millan <serweb(a)finian.net> wrote: > If the modified RTP and non-modified RTP modules are on the same machine and > most regular calls are already making use of the RTP, then the IP's > shouldn't change at all. So the parties involved in the tapping will still > see the same IP address at the providers end, which shouldn't give it away > if they are being tapped. > > It would be nice to ignore, but when the authorities come to the front desk > with orders to tap and collect, there needs to be a means to do that so that > you don't end up getting slapped with an Obstruct justice charge. So there > does need to be a method available, or work around, to impliment to comply > with the orders. > > Terry > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jiri Kuthan" <jiri(a)iptel.org> > To: "Java Rockx" <javarockx(a)gmail.com>om>; <ser(a)cannes.f9.co.uk> > Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org> > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 4:01 PM > Subject: Re: [Serusers] RTP Wiretapping > > > The challenge with this approach is how you make intercepted calls > > non-distinguishable from regular calls. The intercepted party may > > watch signaling and notice service provider's IP addresses. Also, > > the quality may degrade through use of RTP relay. > > > > A possible option is to ingore this problem. > > > > Other option would be to implement interception in edge routers. > > Obviously, it is not an easy one. > > > > -jiri > > > > At 01:16 PM 3/2/2005, Java Rockx wrote: > > >I was thinking about having a group called "spy" in the grp table and > > >anyone with this ACL would be sent to a modified mediaproxy that would > > >capture the RTP. > > > > > >User that don't have the "spy" ACL would be handled normally and if > > >NAT traversal is needed then use an unmodified media proxy. > > > > > >Regards, > > >Paul > > > > > > > > >On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 08:00:24 -0000, Chris <ser(a)cannes.f9.co.uk> wrote: > > >> Why not use a from/to etc detection in .cfg (using database...) > > >> to trigger a remote proxy through the requesting agency > > >> They then have the capture issue > > >> and you have no monitor or delivery issues? > > >> Might require conditions of their placement of a proxy? > > >> (but is their problem) > > >> Regards > > >> Chris > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On > > >> Behalf Of Java Rockx > > >> Sent: 26 February 2005 14:29 > > >> To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > > >> Subject: [Serusers] RTP Wiretapping > > >> > > >> Hi All. > > >> > > >> I'm located in the US and would like to comply with the Communications > > >> Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) that Congress passed which > > >> basically says that VoIP providers should have the ability to wiretap > > >> conversations for the FBI upon request. > > >> > > >> I use mediaproxy for NAT traversal. So my question is how can I be > > >> CALEA compliant? I assume I should be able to modify mediaproxy to > > >> write RTP streams to disk, but I'm unclear on how to "mix" both sides > > >> of the conversation. > > >> > > >> Can anyone help with a suggestion? > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Paul > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Serusers mailing list > > >> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > > >> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > > >> > > >> -- > > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > > >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > >> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 25/02/2005 > > >> > > >> -- > > >> No virus found in this outgoing message. > > >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > >> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.2 - Release Date: 28/02/2005 > > >> > > >> > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Serusers mailing list > > >serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > > >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > > > > -- > > Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Serusers mailing list > > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > > > > > >