A US appeals court on Friday upheld the government's authority to force high-speed Internet service providers to give law enforcement authorities access for surveillance purposes.
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a petition aimed at overturning a decision by regulators requiring facilities-based broadband providers and those that offer Internet telephone service to comply with US wiretap laws. The court concluded that the FCC requirement was a "reasonable policy choice" even though information services are exempted from the government's wiretapping authority.
The FCC has set a May 14, 2007 deadline for compliance. The ruling comes at a time when critics have voiced concerned the Bush administration's surveillance program violates civil liberties. The administration argues it needs the program, which allows the National Security Agency to monitor international telephone calls of US citizens, as part of its broader war on terrorism.
Authorities are concerned the growth of Internet communications could allow criminals to circumvent wiretaps by using e-mail and Internet phone services instead of traditional telephone services. Private networks would not be subject to the wiretap requirements, but those connected with a public network would have to comply with the law.
The FCC decision has prompted an appeal by universities and libraries. The groups, including the American Library Association and Association of American Universities, challenged the agency's authority to extend such requirements to high-speed Internet services. The FCC has long considered broadband Internet in the category of an "information service."
But in an opinion written by Judge David Sentelle, the appeals court said the same words could be defined differently by the FCC in applying the wiretapping laws. In a dissenting opinion, one of the judges, Harry Edwards, called the argument "convoluted."
"The agency has simply abandoned the well-understood meaning of 'information services' without offering any coherent alternative interpretation in its place," Edwards wrote.
Comments
Comments are closed.