Interceptability of telecommunications: Is US and Dutch law prepared for the future?

Telecommunications Policy

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 45-67

  Koops, Bert Jaap ^a   Bekkers, Rudi ^b,c  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^c Dialogic Innovatie and Interactie   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Interceptability; Netherlands; Telecommunications; United States

Indexed keywords

CRYPTOGRAPHY; ELECTRONIC CRIME COUNTERMEASURES; INTERNET; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; MARKETING; PUBLIC POLICY; TELECOMMUNICATION;

INTERCEPTABILITY; NETHERLANDS; UNITED STATES;

TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES;

EID: 33846354240     PISSN: 03085961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2006.11.006     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Administrative Office of the United States Courts. (2005). 2004 Wiretap Report. Washington, DC: US Courts, April 2005 〈http://www.uscourts.gov/wiretap04/contents.html〉.
2. Adrian J.E. VoIP on tap: Whether the FCC should apply wiretapping standards to voice over internet protocol. Administrative Law Review 57 Spring (2005) 647-668
3. Albrecht, H.-J., Dorsch, C., & Krüpe, C. (2003). Rechtswirklichkeit und Effizienz der Überwachung der Telekommunikation nach den §§100a, 100b StPO und anderer verdeckter Ermittlungsmassnahmen. Freiburg: Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, Juni 2003 (480pp.), 〈http://www.iuscrim.mpg.de/verlag/online/Band_115.pdf〉.
4. AMS-IX. (2005). AMS-IX monthly reporting: Cumulative report 2005, 〈http://www.ams-ix.net/〉.
5. Beijer, A., Bokhorst, R. J., Boone, M., et al. (2004). De Wet bijzondere opsporingsbevoegdheden-eindevaluatie. Meppel, WODC/Boom Juridische uitgevers (305pp.).
6. Bekkers, R. N. A. (2004), New challenges for telecommunications standardization as a result of a changing environment. Nice: ETSI General Assembly. Report commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, 29-30 November 2004.
7. Bekkers, R. N. A. (2005). On the increasing importance of technical interoperability and ETSI's role in it. Discussion document ETSI/GA45(05)21, offered to the ETSI General Assembly on behalf of the Dutch members of ETSI.
8. Bellovin, S., et al. (2006). Security implications of applying the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act to Voice over IP, 13 June 2006, 〈http://www.itaa.org/news/docs/CALEAVOIPreport.pdf〉.
9. BeVier L.R. The communications assistance for law enforcement act of 1994: A surprising sequel to the break up of AT&T. Stanford Law Review 51 (1999) 1049-1125
10. Büllingen, F., & Hillebrand, A. (2003). Sicherstellung der Überwachbarkeit der Telekommunikation. Ein Vergleich der Regelungen in den G7-Staaten. Bad Honnef: wik, Juli 2003 (104pp.).
11. Carter, W., & Stewart, H. (1999). Multimedia on the move. EBU Technical Review, Autumn, 8-17.
12. Chong, H. M., & Matthews, H. S. (2004). Comparative analysis of traditional telephone and Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) systems. IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment.
13. Davidson, J., & Peters, J. (2000). Voice over IP fundamentals. Indianapolis (IN): Cisco.
14. Durkin, J. F. (2003). Voice-enabling the data network: H.232, MGCP, SIP, QoS, SLA's and security. Indianapolis (IN): Cisco.
15. FCC. (2004). Notice of proposed rulemaking and declaratory ruling. FCC 04-187, Washington, DC, 9 August 2004, 〈http://www.askcalea.net/docs/20040809.fcc.04-187.pdf〉.
16. FCC. (2005). First report and order and further notice of proposed rulemaking. FCC 05-153, Washington, DC, 23 September 2005, 〈http://www.askcalea.org/docs/20050923-fcc-05-153.pdf〉.
17. FCC. (2006). Second report and order and memorandum opinion and order. FCC 06-56, Washington, DC, 3 May 2006, 〈http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf〉.
18. Feit S. TCP/IP: Architecture, Protocols, and Implementation with IPv6 and IP Security. Second Edition (1997), McGraw-Hill, New York
19. Huitema C. IPv6: The New Internet Protocol (1996), Prentice Hall, New Jersey
20. Koops B.J. The crypto controversy. A key conflict in the information society (1999), Kluwer Law International, The Hague, etc. 301pp.
21. Koops, B.-J., Bekkers, R., Bongers, F., et al. (2005). Aftapbaarheid van telecommunicatie. Een evaluatie van hoofdstuk 13 Telecommunicatiewet. Tilburg: TILT, November 2005. Study commissioned by the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Available from 〈http://www.minez.nl/content.jsp?objectid=39177〉.
22. Oram, A. (Ed.), (2001). Peer-to-Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies. O'Reilly.
23. Smits A.H.H. Strafvorderlijk onderzoek van telecommunicatie (2006), Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen (466pp.)
24. Statewatch. (1997). European Union and FBI launch global surveillance system, February.
25. Sutter, G. (2001). A tale of two interception regimes: RIP v CALEA, a comparison. In: 16th BILETA annual conference, Edinburgh.
26. Verma, D.C. (2004). Legitimate Applications of Peer-to-Peer Networks. John Wiley.
27. Yeates J. CALEA and the RIPA: The US and the UK responses to wiretapping in an increasingly wireless world. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology 12 (2001) 125-166