United States Telecom
Association v. FCC case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
227 F.3d 450, 343 U.S.
App. D.C. 278, 20 CR 1285, 6 ILRD 79 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner
telecommunication carriers and privacy organizations challenged
portions of Federal Communications Commission's order implementing
the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that
required carriers to make available to law enforcement agencies
various information.
FACTS: Petitioner telecommunication carriers and privacy organizations challenged those portions of the order implementing the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA) that required carriers to make available to law enforcement agencies the location of antenna towers used in wireless telephone calls, signaling information from custom calling features (such as call forwarding and call waiting), telephone numbers dialed after calls are connected, and data pertaining to digital "packet-mode" communications. The court vacated the order and remanded the provision respecting the custom calling features and dialed digits because respondent Federal Communications Commission failed to explain cogently why carriers should be required to implement the four punch list items, to compare the cost of implementation, or to consider the privacy implications. The decision with regard to antenna location was, however, both reasoned and reasonable and considered the CALEA's privacy requirements. Respondent's decision not to remove the packet-mode data requirement was left undisturbed because the order could not force carriers to violate their duty to protect privacy.
CONCLUSION: Petitions granted as to provision of order that required carriers to make available custom calling features and dialed digits because respondent failed to explain why carrier should do so, to compare cost, or to consider privacy implications, but petitions were denied respecting antenna information and packet-mode data.
FACTS: Petitioner telecommunication carriers and privacy organizations challenged those portions of the order implementing the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA) that required carriers to make available to law enforcement agencies the location of antenna towers used in wireless telephone calls, signaling information from custom calling features (such as call forwarding and call waiting), telephone numbers dialed after calls are connected, and data pertaining to digital "packet-mode" communications. The court vacated the order and remanded the provision respecting the custom calling features and dialed digits because respondent Federal Communications Commission failed to explain cogently why carriers should be required to implement the four punch list items, to compare the cost of implementation, or to consider the privacy implications. The decision with regard to antenna location was, however, both reasoned and reasonable and considered the CALEA's privacy requirements. Respondent's decision not to remove the packet-mode data requirement was left undisturbed because the order could not force carriers to violate their duty to protect privacy.
CONCLUSION: Petitions granted as to provision of order that required carriers to make available custom calling features and dialed digits because respondent failed to explain why carrier should do so, to compare cost, or to consider privacy implications, but petitions were denied respecting antenna information and packet-mode data.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment