Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Patent application title: SECURING METHOD FOR LAWFUL INTERCEPTION
Inventors: Michael Eoin Buckley (Grayslake, IL, US) Michael Eoin Buckley (Grayslake, IL, US) Michael Charles Hollatz (Huntley, IL, US) Robert John Lambert (Cambridge, CA) Robert John Lambert (Cambridge, CA) Nevine Maurice Nassif Ebeid
IPC8 Class: AH04L2906FI
USPC Class: 713171
Class name: Multiple computer communication using cryptography particular communication authentication technique having key exchange
Publication date: 2014-12-25
Patent application number: 201403
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20140380056#ixzz3N1kLAunS
I believe these gentleman are Microsoft employees
In reading the basis of this approval by the IPEA and their opinion in regards to novelty, inventive step & industrial applicability...
Citations and explanations: Reference is made to the following documents
US2009/0028146 A1-Microsoft Corp-kleyman et al. 01/29/09
US7454510 B2 - Microsoft Corp - kleyman et al.- Nov 18/08
US2007/025348 A1 - Fujistu Ltd - Shiri et al.- Nov 01/07
US2007/0036143 A1 - Wade Alt, Evan Borgstrom...ALT et al. Feb 15/07
Telecoms Offer to Build Surveillance Tools into NetworksNevertheless, gov't still feels the need to legislate interception, docs show.
http://m.thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2014/12/17/Surveillance-Tools-in-Networks/?size=large
By Michael Geist, Today, TheTyee.ca
After years of failed bills, public debate and considerable controversy, lawful access legislation received royal assent last week. Public Safety Minister Peter MacKay's Bill C-13 lumped together measures designed to combat cyberbullying with a series of new warrants to enhance police investigative powers, generating criticism from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, civil liberties groups and some prominent victims' rights advocates. They argued that the government should have created cyberbullying safeguards without sacrificing privacy.
While the bill would have benefited from some amendments, it remains a far cry from earlier versions that featured mandatory personal information disclosure without court oversight and required Internet providers to install extensive surveillance and interception capabilities within their networks.
The mandatory disclosure of subscriber information rules, which figured prominently in earlier lawful access bills, were gradually reduced in scope and ultimately eliminated altogether. Moreover, a recent Supreme Court ruling raised doubt about the constitutionality of the provisions.
The surveillance and interception capability issue is more complicated, however. The prospect of a total surveillance infrastructure within Canadian Internet networks generated an enormous outcry when proposed in Vic Toews' 2012 lawful access bill. Not only did the bill specify the precise required surveillance and interception capabilities, but it also would have established extensive Internet provider reporting requirements and envisioned partial payments by government to help offset the costs for smaller Internet providers.
Those provisions were dropped from Bill C-13, yet according to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, both Internet providers and the government have been debating a "Plan B" on how to ensure that there are surveillance and interception capable networks.
Surveillance capabilities built-in
Perhaps the most notable revelation is that Internet providers have tried to convince the government that they will voluntarily build surveillance capabilities into their networks. A 2013 memorandum prepared for the public safety minister reveals that Canadian telecom companies advised the government that the leading telecom equipment manufacturers, including Cisco, Juniper and Huawei, all offer products with interception capabilities at a small additional cost.
In light of the standardization of the interception capabilities, the memo notes that the Canadian providers argue that "the telecommunications market will soon shift to a point where interception capability will simply become a standard component of available equipment, and that technical changes in the way communications actually travel on communications networks will make it even easier to intercept communications."
In other words, Canadian telecom providers are telling the government there is no need for legally mandated surveillance and interception functionality since they will be building networks that will feature those capabilities by default.
Surveillance should be legislated: gov't
While Canadian network providers claimed that interception and surveillance capabilities would become a standard feature in their networks, government officials were not entirely convinced. Department officials argued that interception is a "complex process" and that legislative requirements were preferred.
In the absence of mandated surveillance and interception capabilities, another internal government memorandum emphasized the value of incorporating the technologies in wireless networks through spectrum licence requirements. The memorandum notes that Public Safety works with Industry Canada in developing those requirements and deals directly with providers to ensure that they meet the necessary standards.
The department's stated goal is to "ensure that the lawful interception capabilities of public safety agencies are maximized within the existing legal framework." In meeting its goal, the memorandum notes that it will work directly with the wireless providers to assess compliance levels and gain "valuable information on the interception capability currently available."
The latest chapter of lawful access legislation may have come to a close, but the internal government documents suggest that the story is not yet over. With telecom providers suggesting that surveillance-capable networks are inevitable and government officials seeking alternatives to mandatory interception capabilities, the reality is that some of the issues at the heart of lawful access remain very much in play.
US technology companies, anti-terrorism and privacy: tensions in the legal framework
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2014/november/us-technology-companies-anti-terrorism-and-privacy-tensions-in-the-legal-framework/
VoIP Services Coming Soon for WhatsApp Users
November 14, 2014
By Alisen Downey, VoIP System Web Editor
http://www.voipsystemreport.com/articles/393712-voip-services-coming-soon-whatsapp-users.htm
For diehard WhatsApp users, there is some good news: VoIP calls are on the horizon. Many have speculated that the over-the-top (OTT) app service would introduce VoIP at some point, given the popularity of the service and the need to stay competitive against other apps offering both IP-based messaging and voice calls. After WhatsApp was purchased by Facebook (News - Alert), those speculations skyrocketed, and last week WhatsApp more or less confirmed that the feature is being developed.
While the statement was somewhat vague, the CEO of WhatsApp did say that the company’s developers were working towards providing VoIP services that will likely be released in 2015. In the same statement he noted that there have been technical hurdles that have delayed the launching process. But for now at least users know that it is in the works.
WhatsApp has professed in the past that it wants to hit the one billion mark for number of users, which seems even more likely following Facebook’s acquisition. The option to make voice calls from the app, however, would be a game changer, as it would draw in an entirely new crop of users seeking cheap or free voice calling services. Adding this group of prospective users would give the company quite a boost.
As it stands, the app is somewhat limited. While it offers instant messaging, as well as the option to send voice or video messages, it doesn’t support live voice calls—and many of its competitors in the OTT app space do already.Skype (News - Alert), Viber, WeChat, LINE, Tango and others all offer the same services as WhatsApp, plus VoIP calling and a multitude of other features. So while adding VoIP to its list of services is exciting for existing users, it also seems incredibly necessary in order for WhatsApp to remain relevant.
I agree, he has always been my #1 pick for a buyer of these
patents!
Would you not agree that the outcome of the surveillance lawsuits would impact the LI need/value of VPLM's patent?
I believe I read correctly that the court date is set for Dec 19 for Jewel vs NSA (been going on since 2008)
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline
Lawful Interception of VoIP Systems: A Hidden Patent Battleground?
October 22, 2014
By Alisen Downey, VoIP System Web Editor
With the rash of Big Brother-style reveals made by Edward Snowden about the NSA’s extensive snooping worldwide, the idea of someone having unlimited access to our phone calls and text messages still seems a bit unsavory. But there are still practical reasons for accessing such information by law enforcement officials—when warranted—and such information can in some instances make or break an investigation, or be the tipping point that brings a perpetrator to justice.
The ability to legally access VoIP systems for call records and messages can be a tricky but beneficial power, and as such many companies have made plays to ensure this ability for themselves. This process, known officially as “Lawful Intercept,” provides a means to not only stealthily intercept phone calls, but also SMS text messages, multimedia or picture messages (MMS), and video chat in real time.
Voip-Pal.com Inc. has been adding onto its Lawful Intercept portfolio of patents for several years now. Its original Lawful Intercept patent was applied for in 2007, and now the company is announcing the approval of its seventh patent application, “Intercepting Voice Over IP Communications and Other Data Communications (News - Alert),” Application No. 13/863,306. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has granted allowance of the patent, which was applied for in April of 2013, meaning that prosecution is closed for the patent application and it is allowed for issuance as a patent.
With this newest patent, Voip-Pal will be able to offer solutions to common law enforcement problems by providing the capability to immediately intercept VoIP calls and texts in real time, thereby potentially stopping crimes and acts of terror in their tracks. In addition, Voip-Pal’s Lawful Intercept solutions will be able to intercept video chat applications like Microsoft’s (News - Alert) SKYPE and Google Hangout.
But Voip-Pal isn’t the only company vying for Lawful Intercept patents. In an interesting twist, Microsoft Corporation filed for its own version of Legal Intercept in 2009, (U.S. Patent Application 20110153809). Microsoft and Voip-Pal’s patent applications had significant similarities, but because Voip-Pal’s version was filed two years before Microsoft’s, it had priority. Consequently, Microsoft’s Legal Intercept was rejected by the USPTO in 2011 and has since been abandoned. Perhaps it’s not worth wondering how things would have changed for Microsoft if its patent had gone through, considering that it was later revealed the corporation was handing over private user data to the NSA regardless.
“The current Board and management are very grateful that the technological vision of our engineering staff several years ago was so perceptive as to yield patented technologies that are now the basis of the emerging VoIP network functionality,” said Dr. Thomas E. Sawyer, chairman and CEO of Voip-Pal. “This latest patent further reinforces Voip-Pal’s disruptive technology position in the rapidly growing VoIP arena. Testing by Legacy telephone companies of VoIP networks gives evidence of its credibility.”
Given that VoIP is becoming a primary form of communication around the world, Voip-Pal feels that the ability for real-time interception of VoIP communications Lawful Intercept provides will become an increasingly fundamental tool for governments and law enforcement agencies worldwide.
http://www.voipsystemreport.com/articles/391939-lawful-interception-voip-systems-hidden-patent-battleground.htm
I believe VPLM can only benefit from set precedence with this companies VoIP infringement lawsuits.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aPxCkudBOi_8
C2 Communications Technologies Inc. Settles Lawsuit Against Sprint
SPRINT AGREES TO LICENSE C2'S PATENTS
MARSHALL, TEXAS -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 06/04/08 -- C2 Communications Technologies Inc. ("C2"), a subsidiary of C2 Global Technologies Inc. (OTCBB: COBT), is pleased to announce that it has settled its patent infringement litigation against Sprint Communications Co. L.P. by entering into a Settlement and License Agreement. The terms of the license are confidential.
In June 2006, C2 filed a patent infringement lawsuit against AT&T, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., Qwest Communications International, Inc., Bellsouth Corporation, Sprint Nextel Corporation, Global Crossing Limited, and Level 3 Communications, Inc. The complaint was filed in the Marshall Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and alleges that the defendants' services and systems utilizing Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") infringe C2's U.S. Patent No. 6,243,373, (the "'373 Patent") entitled "Method and Apparatus for Implementing a Computer Network/Internet Telephone System". The complaint seeks an injunction, monetary damages and costs. In February 2008, the complaints against AT&T, Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc. were settled by entering into Settlement and License Agreements. A trial date of September 2, 2008 has been set for the lawsuit.
Allan Silber, Chairman & CEO of C2 said "We are extremely pleased with the success achieved in licensing our patents to companies with the stature of AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. This puts us in an excellent position to aggressively pursue licenses from other entities that are using our patented technology, which includes corresponding patents in Australia, Canada, China and Europe."
C2 Global Technologies Inc. is a subsidiary of Counsel Corporation (TSX: CXS).
About C2 Global Technologies Inc.
C2's business is focused on licensing its patents, which include two foundational patents in Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") technology. C2 plans to realize value from its intellectual property by offering licenses to service providers, equipment companies and end-users that are deploying VoIP networks for phone-to-phone communications. C2 also invests in Internet-based e-commerce businesses. For further information, please visit C2's website at www.c-2technologies.com.
Also on: biz.yahoo.com/e/130814/hgbl10-q.html
In June 2006, C2 Communications Technologies Inc. ("C2 Technologies"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against seven major U.S. telecommunications carriers, which alleged that these companies' VoIP services and systems infringed the VoIP Patent. The litigation resulted in the Company entering into settlement and license agreements in 2008, for which CRBCI was paid $17,625 in aggregate, whereby CRBCI granted the defendants non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide, fully paid up, royalty-free licenses under any of CRBCI's present patents and patent applications, including the VoIP Patent, to make, use, sell or otherwise dispose of any goods and services based on such patents.
In August 2009, C2 Technologies filed a similar lawsuit against PAETEC Corporation, Matrix Telecom, Inc., Windstream Corporation, and Telephone and Data Systems, Inc., alleging that the defendants' services and systems utilizing VoIP infringe the Company's U.S. Patent No. 6,243,373. The complaint sought an injunction, monetary damages and costs. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the complaint against Matrix Telecom, Windstream Corporation and Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. was dismissed without prejudice. A trial date was set for March 13, 2013, but in the first quarter of 2013 the Company entered into a settlement and license agreement with the remaining defendant for a payment of $200 on similar terms to the litigation discussed above.
The Company's segments are discussed in more detail in Note 12 of the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements.
Communications for Law Enforcement Act Public Law No. 103-414,108 Statute 4279
http://nationalcorrectionsoc.wordpress.com/communications-for-law-enforcement-act-public-law-no-103-414108-statute-4279/
Almost all countries have LI capability requirements and have implemented them using global LI requirements and standards developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), or CableLabs organisations—for wireline/Internet, wireless, and cable systems, respectively. In the USA, the comparable requirements are enabled by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), with the specific capabilities promulgated jointly by the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice. In the USA, Lawful Intercept technology is currently patented by a company named Voip-pal.com under the USPTO Publication #: 20100150138.
To prevent investigations’ being compromised, LI systems may be designed in a manner that hides the interception from the telecommunications operator concerned. This is a requirement in some jurisdictions.
To ensure systematic procedures for carrying out interception, while also lowering the costs of interception solutions, industry groups and government agencies worldwide have attempted to standardize the technical processes behind lawful interception. One organization, ETSI, has been a major driver in lawful interception standards not only for Europe, but worldwide.
This architecture attempts to define a systematic and extensible means by which network operators and law enforcement agents (LEAs) can interact, especially as networks grow in sophistication and scope of services. Note this architecture applies to not only “traditional” wireline and wireless voice calls, but to IP-based services such as Voice over IP, email, instant messaging, etc. The architecture is now applied worldwide (in some cases with slight variations in terminology), including in the United States in the context of CALEA conformance. Three stages are called for in the architecture:
1. collection where target-related “call” data and content are extracted from the network
2.mediation where the data is formatted to conform to specific standards
3.delivery of the data and content to the law enforcement agency (LEA).
The call data (known as Intercept Related Information or IRI in Europe and Call Data or CD in the US) consists of information about the targeted communications, including destination of a voice call (e.g., called party’s telephone number), source of a call (caller’s phone number), time of the call, duration, etc. Call content is namely the stream of data carrying the call. Included in the architecture is the lawful interception management function, which covers interception session set-up and tear down, scheduling, target identification, etc. Communications between the network operator and LEA are via the Handover Interfaces (designated HI). Communications data and content are typically delivered from the network operator to the LEA in an encrypted format over an IP-based VPN. The interception of traditional voice calls still often relies on the establishment of an ISDN channel that is set up at the time of the interception.
As stated above, the ETSI architecture is equally applicable to IP-based services where IRI (or CD) is dependent on parameters associated with the traffic from a given application to be intercepted. For example, in the case of email IRI would be similar to the header information on an email message (e.g., destination email address, source email address, time email was transmitted) as well as pertinent header information within the IP packets conveying the message (e.g., source IP address of email server originating the email message). Of course, more in-depth information would be obtained by the interception system so as to avoid the usual email address spoofing that often takes place (e.g., spoofing of source address). Voice-over-IP likewise has its own IRI, including data derived from Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) messages that are used to set up and tear down a VOIP call.
ETSI LI Technical Committee work today is primarily focussed on developing the new Retained Data Handover and Next Generation Network specifications, as well as perfecting the innovative TS102232 standards suite that apply to most contemporary network uses.
USA interception standards that help network operators and service providers conform to CALEA are mainly those specified by the Federal Communications Commission (which has both plenary legislative and review authority under CALEA), CableLabs, and the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS). ATIS’s standards include new standards for broadband Internet access and VoIP services, as well as legacy J-STD-025B, which updates the earlier J-STD-025A to include packetized voice and CDMA wireless interception. All of these standards have been challenged as “deficient” by the U.S. Dept of Justice pursuant to CALEA.
Canadian High Court Clears Way For Wiretap Disclosures
The Walls Have Ears – Lots of Them!
James B. Musgrove, Joshua Chad
October 2014
http://www.mcmillan.ca/Canadian-Cartel-News-Volume-4-The-Walls-Have-Ears--Lots-of-Them?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original
Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") jurisprudence in the cartel space is rare – and therefore valuable. While not always good news, it provides definitive guidance.
On October 17, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that plaintiffs involved in class action proceedings against multiple gas station operators would be granted access to the Canadian Competition Bureau's (the "CCB's") wiretap evidence collected during the course of its criminal investigation into the conduct. The majority decision of the SCC held that neither the Competition Act nor the Criminal Code prevented a civil court from ordering the disclosure, by the CCB, of wiretap evidence obtained in connection with a criminal investigation.
Between 2004 and 2006, the CCB conducted an investigation, known as operation "Octane", looking into alleged price fixing of retail gasoline prices in several smaller cities in the province of Québec. The investigation led to criminal charges being laid against 54 corporations and individuals. During the course of the investigation the CCB successfully intercepted and recorded more than 220,000 private communications pursuant to seven judicial authorizations.
When the criminal investigation became known, a class action proceeding was commenced against some of the criminally accused parties, as well as additional defendants who were not charged criminally. During the course of these civil proceedings, counsel for the plaintiffs sought to obtain the transcripts and recordings of the conversations that the CCB had intercepted pursuant to wiretaps.
In July 2012, the Superior Court of Québec accepted class counsel's request and ordered that the CCB and the Director of Public Prosecutions provide the requested recordings to the lawyers and their experts participating in the class proceedings, with the requirement that these recordings be screened to protect the privacy of third parties not connected to the proceedings. The Québec Court of Appeal declined to review the Superior Court's decision, and the matter was then brought before the SCC.
In reaching its decision to deny the appeal and permit the disclosure of the wiretapped conversations, the SCC drew a distinction between the justification required to permit the interception of private communications and the justification required to permit the disclosure of already intercepted communications. The SCC held that, in terms of authorizing the interception of private communications, the Criminal Code provides a mechanism to protect private communications that is necessarily balanced against the right of the state to intrude on privacy to further the suppression of crime. As a result, electronic surveillance can only be authorized in limited circumstances relating to the investigation of serious crimes and the investigation of threats to Canada's national security. However, the SCC found that once private conversations have already been intercepted, the focus of the inquiry turns to civil discovery and disclosure principles. Thus, the SCC reviewed the applicable discovery rules related to the rights of discovery in civil lawsuits, requiring the disclosure of documents relevant to an issue in the proceedings in the possession of a third party. Based on these rules of civil procedure, the SCC approved the disclosure of recorded wiretapped conversations gathered as part of a criminal investigation, subject to the restrictions imposed by the Superior Court judge.
The decision has implications for all relevant parties. There are general privacy concerns, which were addressed as discussed above. There are also considerations for the CCB. The costs of the CCB in managing the production – and deletions – ordered may be considerable. The CCB may also find that it will get less information from parties on a voluntary basis – since it is not obvious that the decision will be restricted to information gathered by wiretaps. Plaintiffs, while immediate beneficiaries, may find that they obtain more materials than they can reasonably, or economically, manage.
The biggest impact, however, will be on defendants – the subject of investigations. All other things being equal, additional information in the hands of plaintiffs is unlikely to be beneficial to them. There may also be changes in tactical considerations, including what they are willing to proffer to government investigators. As well, in the past, defendants would often seek not to come into possession of certain CCB materials, so that they need not be produced on discovery. This approach may no longer be relevant.
However much any party may be happy – or unhappy – with the decision, it is now – and for the foreseeable future will likely be – the law. Plaintiffs will have access to a wider, in some cases much wider, suite of information in cartel follow-on class actions. This may not be a whole new world, but it is a notable shift.
by James B. Musgrove and Joshua Chad
a cautionary note
The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.
© McMillan LLP 2014
What the Lawful Intercept Patent Means for VoIP
http://getvoip.com/blog/2013/01/29/what-the-lawful-intercept-patent-means-for-voip
ByMichael Ventimiglia January 29, 2013
What the Lawful Intercept Patent Means for VoIPAs previously discussed last week, the US Patent and Trademark Office has issued an official allowance to Digifonica for its Lawful Intercept solution. While the patent has been around in various forms since 2007, it is starting to take shape and become a reality. Though the intended use of the solution has been generally discussed, the implication is that it will undoubtedly grow to include more applications over time. While its current incarnation seems a good tool to ensure tighter security over VoIP systems, one must wonder what effect this solution will have on the industry as a whole. Will users be receptive to the solution? Will the solution be made mandatory by government legislation? How will this effect service and/or cost? The list of questions goes on and on.
The Lawful Intercept solution typically refers to the technology and processes law enforcement agencies use to intercept and monitor VoIP calls. While traditional systems already account for this type of service, the expansion of the internet has increased the number of ways users can access the web. With this, it has become increasingly more difficult to track calls. Now, VoIP providers, specifically, Digifonica, have engineered a new solution, which allows monitoring to occur directly on the VoIP provider’s equipment instead over internet connection.
From a governmental standpoint, this solution can be extremely effective in reducing illegal activity – an efficient means of counteracting illegal activities and scams leveraging VoIP communications. With a refined Lawful Intercept solution, law officials will be able to monitor any conversation over VoIP using only the provider’s hardware. This means that VoIP calls can be monitored wherever, whenever using the hardware itself. Additionally, this service is undetectable by the target and hides the information from all, save for the most privileged users. Though this application sounds practical enough, it has the potential to cause some users to feel uncomfortable.
One of the more disconcerting elements comes with patent’s transparency -- all calls can be monitored at any time; however, Lawful Intercept is not lawless. Instead there are rules and regulations the solution must comply with. These standards are defined by both the Telephone Industry Association (TIA) specification and the Packet Cable Electronic Surveillance Specification. While this is a pro for governmental use, many users might disagree in declaring an invasion of privacy. Despite any potential residential reservations, many countries feel this is a necessary means in response to the growing need for security over VoIP calls. As a result, more and more governments are looking to pass legislation implementing VoIP providers’ mandatory inclusion of the feature. As a result, all providers will be required to include the solution within their equipment.
From a residential VoIP standpoint, this may not seem an appealing solution. As users do not feel comfortable with calls being monitored, they may drop their service and return to their traditional solution. Additionally, users may drop their service if they feel VoIP is not secure means of communication. Either way presents a serious challenge for providers. Though the original patent has been revised and amended countless times since its inception, it still allows for providers to breach users’ privacy when warranted. Inversely, the added security feature may attract prospective customers, who were weary of a VoIP service previously. It’s essentially a double-edged sword that may swing one way or the other in due time.
Aside from customers engaging or disengaging from service, the mandatory implementation of this solution may also drive costs up. As providers are required to include another feature in their hardware, especially if it is provided by an outside company, the cost of production will inevitably rise. With this increase, providers will likely raise the cost of service for their customers. Part of the appeal of VoIP services is cost efficiency. Inversely, increasing prices may drive prospective and current customers away. Again opposite this, some users may feel increased security is worth a cost raise, investing whole-heartedly in subscriptions.
In any essence, Lawful Intercept is a very useful VoIP tool, which ironically and consequently, requires regulation. While there are already a number of standards and regulations in place, more may need to be added in time as the solution evolves further. As many countries look to enforce providers to have this capability engraved in their service, the patent will continue to grow in value. While this solution may affect providers’ pricing, service plans, and general use of service, it is mere speculation at this point how extreme or seamless its application may be. Ultimately, users may welcome increased security protocols over VoIP regardless of these changes, continuing to conduct business as usual.
The Big Picture of The Hosted VoIP Market in 2014
http://getvoip.com/blog/2014/11/19/hosted-voip-market
ByReuben Yonatan
November 19, 2014
We decided to step back and take in the larger picture of all of the emerging trends in the hosted VoIP market. This is one of the most dynamic markets in the technology world today: its growth is explosive, and there’s no end in sight. Every aspect of the way we do business has been touched by these emerging technologies, and more changes are just over the horizon. Last month, the research firm Frost & Sullivan released a comprehensive report on the state of the sector. Over the course of 173 pages, Elka Popova explored the services on offer today and took a look at who is already using Hosted VoIP, who will benefit from it in the near future, and the directions that providers can be expected to take as the market matures. The report was dense, and packed with valuable information. What we found was exciting, encouraging, and worth sharing with our readers. We mulled it over, digested it, and decided to put together this post so that you can take it all in at a glance. So what does the world of cloud communications look like today and where are we headed tomorrow?
Overcoming barriers: what’s in the way?
Before we examine the many ways this technology is thriving and how we expect it to impact businesses in the second half of this decade, it’s worth considering the obstacles that cloud communications are currently facing. While the future growth of VoIP is as close to a sure thing as you get in this world, there are still challenges slowing it down, and objections that some potential customers are raising. You may have said these things yourself.
“The old stuff’s still here, and it works fine.”
The large installed base of traditional premises-based solutions mean that some companies (especially large companies with complex structures and legacy capital expenditures) don’t need or want to invest in new approaches or technologies
“I don’t trust it.”
The reputation of the cloud for security and reliability is getting stronger all the time, but some consumers still have concerns.
“Where do I even start?”
As in any new market, the competitive landscape is crowded and confusing. There are many providers and not a lot to go on when you’re trying to choose. We’re still looking for strong leaders to validate the value proposition of hosted IP communications.
As we’ll see in this post, while each of these constraints are legitimate, we can expect their impact to weaken over time. The first concern is rapidly dissipating due to the new demands of a rapidly evolving workplace. Traditional companies are shifting their organizational structures to encompass the needs of a highly mobile and remote workforce. Worries about security are giving way to the snowball effect: continued technological improvement along with growing (and contagious) consumer confidence about VoIP and cloud technologies will boost adoption at a steady rate. And confusion about which options make sense for any given business will begin to clear as the market matures and providers hone in on the services and features that matter most to their customers.
Crunching the numbers: where we are now?
Who is using the technology and why? Just how much is the market growing? In the last year alone, the hosted VoIP user base grew by 30.5 percent to reach 5.0 million users by year end in 2013. That means an additional 1.2 million new users have adopted cloud communication technology since year end 2012. This is good news for providers: last year’s market revenue added up to an astonishing $1.59 B. It’s also great news for the end users. A robust market like this creates a huge incentive for providers to up the ante on customer experience and service and drives innovation as companies jostle to differentiate themselves. We’ll take a more in-depth look at exactly what we can expect from that process later in the piece. For now, let’s examine the current market demographics and how they will play into emerging trends. The sea of prospective customers out there who can benefit from adopting VoIP and the cloud is deep and wide, but just who are they, and what do they need from the technology? Why should they get on board?
Small businesses are currently the biggest segment of hosted VoIP customers. In fact, the smaller the company, the more likely they are to adopt the solution.
Hosted VoIP 2014 Market Overview: Segmentation by Customer Size
Underserved small and medium-sized businesses who could not afford traditional advanced collaboration and communication technologies are eager to take advantage of this new, affordable option. The low entry barrier, flexibility and scalability of hosted VoIP communication is appealing. While the impact of strained budgets is most apparent among smaller businesses, the fact is that everyone is feeling the pinch. Overall, businesses are facing serious challenges managing their IT and telecommunications needs.
In order to dig deeper into the reasons companies of all sizes are turning to VoIP, Frost and Sullivan ran a series of surveys among IT decision makers. In one, they asked about the biggest IT challenges that businesses are facing:
Hosted VoIP Market 2014: IT Challenges
Many of these challenges can be solved with the adoption of affordable, flexible hosted cloud communications technologies, and we can expect cost to remain a powerful force in market growth. But while it may seem that everyone’s mind is on the bottom line, further surveys reveal other interesting motivations for businesses to adopt the technology.
Hosted VoIP Market 2014: Adoption
Companies perceive cloud computing to be an effective way to address many of the day-to-day concerns involved in running a business. Productivity and relevance are essential measures of how any organization is performing, and any tool that can support these goals is something that demands serious consideration. The fourth factor on that list, improving collaboration, is a major factor in the adoption of cloud communication technology by larger businesses:
Hosted VoIP Market 2014: Adoption
Larger, distributed organizations with many remote and mobile employees are beginning to find this technology invaluable in modern business. Globalization marches on, and the resulting distributed organizations are must find efficient ways to adapt their operations. Quick, responsive resources for managing and supporting geographically dispersed workers, locations, and markets are invaluable.The increasingly mobile and remote workforce is set to become an even bigger factor in how companies handle their communication and collaboration needs. To visualize exactly how quickly things are changing, here’s a picture of the rapidly changing workforce distribution:
Hosted VoIP Market 2014: Impact of the Workforce on IT
Clearly, this decentralization will continue to drive the search for more flexible solutions for border-less communication and collaboration. Hosted VoIP and cloud technologies are perfectly positioned to ride this wave to ever-greater heights. We expect this to be one of the most powerful drivers of growth in the market over the next five years.
The sky’s the limit: how much growth is on the way?
So just how big is this potential market? To understand the possible reach of cloud communications, we need to take a look at who is still out there to reach. Currently there are 138.2 M users of traditional business telephony, most of whom are future candidates for hosted cloud and VoIP adoption. The report has projected that between 2013 and 2020 market growth will hold steady with compound annual growth rates of 27.4 percent in terms of installed users:
Hosted VoIP Market 2014: Installed Users & Revenue Forecast
That inexorable upward climb is an exciting sign of what’s to come, but to really comprehend how far there is to go, we need to see the enormity of the untapped market. Even with that robust rate of growth over the next five years, cloud communication technologies will have barely scraped the surface of the possibilities. The full scale of future demand is startling. Those 27 million users in 2020 will still represent only 18.2 percent penetration:
Hosted VoIP 2014: Demand Analysis
With so much room to grow, providers have an incredible mandate to expand their offerings and reach more businesses than ever before. We have every reason to believe that this will lead to an extremely positive environment for end users.
The future: who’s going to survive, and what will they offer us?
At the moment, there’s a bit of a wild-west attitude in the cloud communications arena. That sense of possibility and the resulting “gold rush” energy make it an exciting time for those within the industry, but it can lead to customers feeling perplexed as they try to sort out which provider is best able to meet the needs of their business. The dust is settling, however, and we can expect clearer markers of quality to appear. When we examine the current factors that customers use to determine which provider they select, it’s easy to see where vendors will be focusing their efforts:
Hosted VoIP 2014: Competitive Attributes
It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there for hosted VoIP providers. As the sector matures, we’ll start to see front-runners emerging who know how to deliver what customers want. These leaders will know how to succeed in a market that has overturned all the traditional monetization models of the telecommunications world, and that drive for differentiation will benefit customers in a number of ways.
The big telcos and vendors who have been scrambling to compete with this emerging technology will start using VoIP offerings as both a defensive and offensive strategy to keep up with changing customer needs. The expansive resources they will bring to the development and marketing of their cloud communication products will be a game changer. Among existing providers, we can also expect to see the market tighten up as mergers and acquisitions accelerate growth for some vendors. The resulting expanded channel capabilities and resources will enable them to improve the customer experience, service, and support they offer to their users. Overall, the providers who will survive and succeed long-term will be those who focus on the basics: streamlining operations and retaining customers with service quality and reliability and back-office systems efficiency.
When it comes to the product itself, several trends are becoming clear. The basic packages offered to users are expected to evolve more in terms of quality than content. As the market continues to adjust to new monetization strategies, advanced services will remain important up-sells: instant messaging, PC/Mac-based soft clients, enhanced mobility, video, web collaboration and contact center. However, bundling strategies will remain about the same, and due the the fierce pressure of competition, the average revenue per user will also stay steady, which is good news for the consumer.
Hosted VoIP 2014: Pricing Trends & Forecast
Because budgetary concerns are set to remain a major factor in adoption, the manner in which cloud services are delivered really matters: the need for flexible and cost-effective broadband access is paramount. This where hosted solutions really come to the fore. Providers who can offer this are already winning customers, and the trend is set to continue:
Hosted VoIP 2014: Segmentation by Type of Access
Additionally, multi-instance platforms will grow in popularity and market share: the security and customization benefits are great, and it’s much easier for users to reuse and integrate existing structures. On a similar note, the user interface will become increasingly important. The trend across all technologies is strongly in favor of more things in sync. The capabilities of the cloud are uniquely suited to this demand, and service providers will stress their ability to integrate with third-party communications and productivity applications.
In conclusion:
Clearly, things are just getting started. The potential for growth in hosted cloud communication technologies remains staggering, and the incentives for adoption are increasing in both urgency and strength. Companies are shifting their patterns of work, giving rise to the virtual organization as the workforce grows ever more mobile. Businesses of all sizes are looking for cost-effective and ubiquitous connectivity across a galaxy of devices. Both consumers and businesses are expecting ever-greater customization and personalization of the technologies they use every day. Hosted VoIP and cloud technologies are roaring in to address these needs, and the fierce competition from providers to grab the top place is poised to offer consumers continually improving products and services, while keeping prices at an attractively affordable level. The future, for all of us, is very bright
MICROSOFT FEATURED ARTICLES
[November 10, 2014]
Market Research Reports, Inc. (www.marketresearchreports.com): The Global Lawful Interception Market is Expected to reach $2.1 billion by 2020, Finds New Report
(M2 PressWIRE Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) Global Lawful Interception Market (Solutions, Components, Network Technology, Communication Technology, End User, and Geography)- Opportunity Analysis and Forecast-2013-2020, the global lawful interception market is forecast to reach $2.1 billion by 2020, growing at a CAGR of 20.8% during the forecast period (2014 - 2020). Increasing crime rate in the emerging economies such as China, India and African countries would steer the necessity for lawful interceptions.
Lawful interception is considered to be a powerful instrument for fighting crime and helping in maintaining law & order. Audio & video calls, emails, text messages, MMS, digital images, social media chats, facsimile and others are some of the various types of communication technologies, which are intercepted by authorities for tracking illegal activities and collecting evidences.Aiding for lawful interception has become mandatory for the network providers due to the laws drafted by the governments of various nations. European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions/ American Standardization Institution (ANSI/ ATIS), SORM and CableLabs/ PacketCable are some of the institutions/bodies that have set rules and standards for carrying out LI efficiently. Various countries across the globe follow these standards and adhere to the norms set by the regulatory bodies in their respective regions.
Lawful interception (LI) market is witnessing tremendous growth and is speedily picking pace in its lifecycle. Based on the technological strength, it can be safely assumed that LI will be a prominent part of telecommunication market in the years to come. The probable growth that is forecast in the LI market is anticipated based on the rising criminal activities which are carried out over the communication networks using sophisticated communication devices. The growing criminal activities have directly led to the rise in number of interceptions carried out over the communication channels. Additionally, growing adoption of Next Generation Network technology (NGN) will facilitate lawful interception of voice/video calls, text messages, chats, etc. by channelizing these forms of communication over a single network. Audio call interception had the highest revenue during 2013, which accounted for about 32% of the overall market. Video interception is expected to be the fastest growing market segment projecting a CAGR of 33.3% during the 2013-2020.
The file transfer applications are expected to experience the increased lawful interception activities. Due to rapid growth and significant large scale adoption of digital file interception; the file transfer interception is expected to be most prominent market by 2020. The telephonic communications (PSTN) would reduce over the period. However, rising mobile communications and VoIP calls would maintain the market potency of the voice communication in interception. The VoIP solutions are increasingly being used for conversations due to free applications such as Skype, Google Talk, etc. Numerous enterprises are implementing IP telephonic systems within their premises for communication purposes. Such personal and official communications would be key factor driving the interception of voice communication.
The data downloads, and text messaging is another attractive area of interception. The law enforcement agencies often intercept the text messaging, due to ability to carry more information in small volumes of data. Individuals prefer text messaging over voice conservation due to lesser cost and data requirement. Critical information could be communicated in casual text chatting. Due to this, the interception over text messages is implemented by LEAs.
The report profiles major players in the lawful interception market, namely Aqsacom, Cisco Systems, Inc., Incognito, Net Optics, Inc., Utimaco, Netscout, ZTE Corporation, Siemens AG, SS8 Incorporation, Verint, JSI Telecom, RSA NetWitness Corporation, Nice, BAE Systems, Fire Eye and Rohde & Schwarz. Verint Systems leads global market for lawful interception with about 1/3rd of market revenue and has its reach across the globe. In June 2014, Verint announced the expansion of Verint Nextiva Portfolio, which will help in enhancing business intelligence and security solutions in order to avoid frauds and losses. On similar grounds, Nice Systems recently announced the launch of NICE Engagement platform. The launch of this Engagement platform has provided Nice Systems the next generation capture platform technology, which supports 100% real time content analytics. The proposed platform will serve as a real time solution that would assist the law enforcement agencies in effectively executing strategies to counter criminal activities.
Know more about this report at - http://mrr.cm/Zj9 Find all Computing and Electronics Reports at:http://www.marketresearchreports.com/computing-electronics About Market Research Reports, Inc.
Market Research Reports, Inc. is the world's leading source for market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest market research reports on global markets, key industries, leading companies, new products and latest industry analysis & trends.
Contact Us: Mr. Amitava Sen Vice President - Sales & Marketing Market Research Reports, Inc.
Tel USA: +1-302-703-7787 Tel India: +91-80-26860858 For regular industry updates subscribe to our newsletter at:http://www.marketresearchreports.com/subscribe-to-newsletter ;( Market Research Reports, Inc. ) .
(c) 2014 M2 COMMUNICATIONS
http://microsoft-news.tmcnet.com/
4 SMALL CAP STOCKS THAT COULD HAVE A BIG YEAR
19 Sep, 2014
Despite the doom and gloom that hovered over many juniors in 2014, a few companies saw their share prices climb this year and likely more will experience stellar gains during the final quarter and into 2015. The following four small or micro-cap stocks could be star performers in your portfolio sometime during the next 18 months.
It can be said that, so far, 2014 has been another challenging year for most small and micro-cap stocks. Despite the doom and gloom, though, a few companies saw their share prices climb this year and likely more will experience stellar gains during the final quarter and into 2015.
The following four small or micro-cap stocks could be star performers in your portfolio sometime during the next 18 months:
Catalyst Copper Corp. (TSXV: CCY): Even though its share price has risen about 160% so far in 2014 (to its current price of $0.47) and more than 300% since the end of June, the run in this company’s stock could be just getting started.
Catalyst Copper has a 60% stake in the La Verde porphyry copper deposit in Mexico. A January 2013 Preliminary Economic Assessment estimates La Verde as having annual copper production of 211 million pounds over a 20-year mine life, and a pre-tax Net Present Value of $617 million using an 8% discount rate.
As with any of these resource projects, it’s largely about the people involved. And this tiny miner has some big hitters behind it. Its Directors include billionaire financier Frank Giustra (who has a 13.92% interest in the company), and Goldcorp Chairman Ian Telfer (with a 19.99% stake). Catalyst Copper President and CEO Richard Warke, who ran both Augusta Resource as well as Ventana Gold before selling the two companies for a combined total of more than $2 billion, owns 18.04% of the company.
Catalyst Copper Corp. has just over 29 million shares outstanding, and thus it wouldn’t take much in the way of buying to move its stock.
Voip-Pal.com Inc. (OTC: VPLM): The company owns a portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology that it is currently looking to monetize. Voip-Pal’s Mobile Gateway patent, according the company, would allow every mobile smartphone sold to have an application in it that runs in the background (never has to be opened up or accessed like Skype) in which you can make any overseas call at the same cost as a local call.
This patent is significant in that any firm in the telecommunications industry is potentially infringing on Voip-Pal.com’s patent. It would likely be appealing to a larger technology company with a sizable legal team, such as Google, in which defending patents through corporate litigation has become a profitable part of the business.
The ‘Rockstar Consortium’ is a good example of this as Apple, Inc., Blackberry, Ericsson, Microsoft, and Sony teamed up to spend US$4.5 billion to purchase patents from a bankrupt Nortel in 2011, and are trying to sue companies such as Google and Samsung for infringing on Nortel’s patented technology.
Voip-Pal.com recently announced that it has hired Southbank Capital Pty Ltd. to assist in the sale of the company and has also received offers to monetize its telephony technology. Read more about the Voip-Pal.com story >>
Magellan Minerals Ltd. (TSXV: MNM): In the gold mining world, grade is king and this company certainly has the goods: it owns two projects in mining-friendly Brazil totaling 2.4 million ounces, one of which has a Measured and Indicated resource with a grade of about 10 grams per tonne. This same project also boasts a relatively modest CapEx of approximately $65 million.
Its current shareholders include Sprott, Newmont Mining Corporation, Kinross Gold Corporation, and Sandstorm Gold Ltd. If the gold price recovers at all in the next year and a half, this stock could really move.
Keek Inc. (TSXV: KEK): The mobile video social network company has about 69 million members worldwide. Keek allows its users interact with videos up to 36 seconds in length and 111 characters of accompanying text.
The company recently hired Jonathan Dillon as its VP of Business Development for China. Mr. Dillon held similar positions in the past at both Yahoo and Baidu.
According to a Forbes article from late 2013, each active social-media user is worth about $100, regardless of whether that person is on Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn. Even if you discount that number significantly due Keek’s size, you will likely come up with a valuation far north of the company’s current $44 million market capitalization.
While there were many others that could have been included in this list, these four stocks cover both the old and new economies and might be interesting speculations for those who can tolerate a high level of risk.
http://www.smallcappower.com/posts/4-small-cap-stocks-that-could-have-a-big-year
How Emerging Technology Affects Law Enforcement
Hillary Schaub and Darrell M. West | October 28, 2014 7:30am
Technology has transformed our daily lives and replaced analog communication systems with apps and social networks. People feel naturally protective of their personal data and are wary of surveillance from police and intelligence agencies. On October 16th, FBI Director James Comey spoke with Governance Studies’ scholar Ben Wittes about the impact of technology on federal and state law enforcement. Director Comey commented that despite people’s desire for privacy, law enforcement authorities have a duty to keep Americans safe from crime and terrorism. He followed up that the FBI is committed to upholding the rule of law and protecting civil liberties, but evolving technology in the hands of dangerous people is affecting their ability to effectively carry out investigations.
Director Comey described the following barriers that law enforcement faces and necessary updates to antiquated policies:
FBI Director Identifies Challenges to Law EnforcementThe general public misunderstands what information federal law enforcement collects. Many also mistakenly assume that law enforcement authorities have access to all communications at all times. In fact, they must obtain individual warrants approved by judges to intercept the communications of suspected criminals.The proliferation of communication platforms is a huge challenge for law enforcement. Previously, law enforcement authorities could obtain a court order for a wiretap from a single phone carrier. Now, with countless providers, networks, apps, and means of communication, the options for lawful surveillance are limited.The public safety problem of “going dark” is of deep concern for the FBI. Law enforcement authorizes are not always able to access the necessary evidence they need to prosecute crime and prevent terrorism, even with lawful authority. This is exacerbated by companies that are encrypting data for digital services in order to meet consumer demand.Director Comey’s Suggested Policy ChangesPolicymakers need to create a level playing field so that all communication service providers are held to the same standard. An updated law should provide guidance on how to cooperate with law enforcement agents while also protecting their customers’ privacy rights.The Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) that was enacted 20 years ago should be updated to cover all new means of communication. Companies not currently subject to CALEA should be required to build lawful intercept capabilities into the product they provide for law enforcement. Assistance and cooperation is needed from companies to comply with lawful court orders.Law enforcement agencies must upgrade their technical capabilities. Much of the time, law enforcement officials have the legal authority to intercept and access communications and information pursuant to a court order, but often lack the technical ability.
Congress should consider the changes that Director Comey advocates for in the near future. We agree that it is critical that technology firms and police do not become antagonists. It is possible to achieve a balance that protects the privacy of consumers all over the world and allows police to prosecute criminals. US businesses should work together with law enforcement agencies to ensure that US citizens and interests are protected.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/techtank/posts/2014/10/28-comey-stopping-digital-crime
Call Recording Week in Review: Phone Calls Get the Legal Treatment
October 25, 2014
By Alisen Downey, Call Recording World Web Editor
While the initial outrage over the NSA’s secretive spying tactics has worn off, a general air of suspicion and renewed desire to protect people’s privacy has been left in its wake. Call recording practices have always been regulated, but now they are coming into the spotlight in a whole new way. Let’s take a look at some of the highlights in the call recording industry space this past week.
Earlier this year, two cases were brought to court to determine if information taken from the smartphone of two arrested individuals was admissible in court. This created a concern about whether or not smartphone information like call recordings could be looked at without either the owner’s permission or a search warrant. The judges in both these cases independently agreed that this information requires permission. So perhaps, given this attitude in our legal system—particularly in light of the Edward Snowden leaks—it is not surprising that in a speech given by FBI director James Comey last week, he suggested that the agency should ask Congress to force companies to provide access to password-protected data on targeted personal mobile devices, essentially creating a back door for law enforcement to obtain any information it wants.
On the security front, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank (ADCB) in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) announced this week that it will offer voice biometrics in three languages—Arabic, English and Hindi—as a means of authenticating customers. This process uses previously recorded calls from customers to match their voices and verify their identities when calling the bank on future occasions.
“This is safe, secure and reduces the chances of fraud,” the bank said in its statement, explaining that it is much easier for someone to commit fraud by gaining access to passwords and PIN numbers than it is to precisely replicate another’s voice.
And in patent news, Voip-Pal.com announced this week that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has allowed the company an application to extend the patent for its Lawful Intercept program. Lawful Intercept can not only record VoIP calls, but also record text, MMS messages and video chats in real time, which makes it a hugely powerful tool for law enforcement agencies to capture messages from suspects’ mobile devices and catch criminals in the act. It can also intercept conversations on services like Skype and Google Hangouts. But while this patent arguably has many benefits when it comes to local and national security, it has nonetheless raised some eyebrows. Patents are typically intended to encourage innovation, yet Voip-Pal’s application to software remains controversial—since what counts as innovative may not be as obvious to the Patent Office as it is to developers.
http://call-recording.tmcnet.com/topics/call-recording/articles/392242-call-recording-week-review-phone-calls-get-legal.htm
Lawful Interception of VoIP Systems: A Hidden Patent Battleground?
October 22, 2014
By Alisen Downey, VoIP System Web Editor
With the rash of Big Brother-style reveals made by Edward Snowden about the NSA’s extensive snooping worldwide, the idea of someone having unlimited access to our phone calls and text messages still seems a bit unsavory. But there are still practical reasons for accessing such information by law enforcement officials—when warranted—and such information can in some instances make or break an investigation, or be the tipping point that brings a perpetrator to justice.
The ability to legally access VoIP systems for call records and messages can be a tricky but beneficial power, and as such many companies have made plays to ensure this ability for themselves. This process, known officially as “Lawful Intercept,” provides a means to not only stealthily intercept phone calls, but also SMS text messages, multimedia or picture messages (MMS), and video chat in real time.
Voip-Pal.com Inc. has been adding onto its Lawful Intercept portfolio of patents for several years now. Its original Lawful Intercept patent was applied for in 2007, and now the company is announcing the approval of its seventh patent application, “Intercepting Voice Over IP Communications and OtherData Communications (News - Alert),” Application No. 13/863,306. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has granted allowance of the patent, which was applied for in April of 2013, meaning that prosecution is closed for the patent application and it is allowed for issuance as a patent.
With this newest patent, Voip-Pal will be able to offer solutions to common law enforcement problems by providing the capability to immediately intercept VoIP calls and texts in real time, thereby potentially stopping crimes and acts of terror in their tracks. In addition, Voip-Pal’s Lawful Intercept solutions will be able to intercept video chat applications likeMicrosoft’s (News - Alert) SKYPE and Google Hangout.
But Voip-Pal isn’t the only company vying for Lawful Intercept patents. In an interesting twist, Microsoft Corporation filed for its own version of Legal Intercept in 2009, (U.S. Patent Application 20110153809). Microsoft and Voip-Pal’s patent applications had significant similarities, but because Voip-Pal’s version was filed two years before Microsoft’s, it had priority. Consequently, Microsoft’s Legal Intercept was rejected by the USPTO in 2011 and has since been abandoned. Perhaps it’s not worth wondering how things would have changed for Microsoft if its patent had gone through, considering that it was later revealed the corporation was handing over private user data to the NSA regardless.
“The current Board and management are very grateful that the technological vision of our engineering staff several years ago was so perceptive as to yield patented technologies that are now the basis of the emerging VoIP network functionality,” said Dr. Thomas E. Sawyer, chairman and CEO of Voip-Pal. “This latest patent further reinforces Voip-Pal’s disruptive technology position in the rapidly growing VoIP arena. Testing by Legacy telephone companies of VoIP networks gives evidence of its credibility.”
Given that VoIP is becoming a primary form of communication around the world, Voip-Pal feels that the ability for real-time interception of VoIP communications Lawful Intercept provides will become an increasingly fundamental tool for governments and law enforcement agencies worldwide.
http://www.voipsystemreport.com/articles/391939-lawful-interception-voip-systems-hidden-patent-battleground.htm
Will Apple iOS 8 Encryption Spur Demand for Lawful Intercept?
When FBI Director James Comey took the podium in a recent public forum on “going dark,” all in attendance agreed that Apple iOS 8 encryption and other measures designed to render mobile devices impenetrable will make it far more difficult for law enforcement to gather evidence essential to prosecuting criminals.
But the one point no one, including Comey, thought to address: how the near impossibility of cracking mobile devices may drive police to rely more heavily on the tried and true alternative: more frequent recourse to court orders for lawful intercept under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).
Comey’s appearance in a special event held Oct. 16, 2014 at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. was triggered by the recent moves of Apple and Google to add stronger encryption to operating systems for iOS and Android mobile devices. The companies’ decision, widely interpreted in many quarters as the latest tech sector reaction against surveillance in the post-Snowden era, has for weeks fueled protests from the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.
Comey led the chorus Thursday, citing examples of how the ability to comb data from phones seized during arrests has led to the successful prosecution of murderers, drug lords, pedophiles, kidnappers and other bad actors. Apple’s and Google’s new strong encryption padlocks on iPhones and Androids, he added, will essentially eliminate the possibility of conducting forensics on mobile devices, taking LEAs from “dark” to black in the struggle to keep pace with criminals that leverage technology to stay one step ahead of the police.
However, as a solution, Comey called for a change in CALEA that will most assuredly be a non-starter with the tech industry, consumers and lawmakers alike: a new statute requiring equipment manufacturers to provide “front doors” in mobile devices, allowing law enforcement agents to unlock encrypted iPhones, iPads and Android devices, when needed, to find evidence. Comey further suggested that the encryption keys for each device sold be stored by mobile operators. There are inherent “back doors,” tech jargon for a built-in weakness, in both arguments.
Confusion over Smart Device Encryption
During his presentation, Comey repeatedly made reference to the “front door” concept before conceding that he “didn’t care whether they’re called front doors or back doors” — he simply wanted lawful intercept capability built-in to all mobile devices. That cleared the air a bit, but also exposed the basic flaw in his line of reasoning.
To wit, there is no distinction between a “front” and “back door.” They are one and the same: the ability to install a deliberate weakness in a system that can be readily hacked or accessed.
All such weaknesses are back doors and, as any code writer can tell you, they are fairly simple to design. The hard part is creating a back door that only selected people may access. How do you make a back door that only the FBI can use, but which forbids entry to hackers, thieves, and foreign governments’ police and intelligence agencies? You cannot, of course.
Furthermore, because Apple and Google smart devices are sold not just in the U.S. but worldwide, the challenge of creating a law enforcement-only point of entry would need to be mastered not once, but many times over.
Storage is a back door weakness unto itself. At present, with most encryption systems, one key is held by the user and the other by the service provider, ensuring a comfortable level of security for the device and owner. But were the full set of encryption keys for the millions of smart devices in the U.S. alone stored in a handful of operator-owned routers, the potential peril to security that resulted could make Heartbleed look like a mere nosebleed. What ensued might prove a veritable field day for hackers.
Apple and Google opted to punt on that issue and deploy encryption that permits no opportunity for either lawful forensics methods or zero day attacks. According to the companies, preventing access by police wasn’t the only or even the primary factor in their decision to beef up encryption. The goal was to prevent device penetration by anyone.
Apple’s ioS 8 operating system, as one example, appears to have done the job. With the very first power-up of an iPhone 6 and entry of a password to open the device, the iPhone begins to encrypt every bit of data resident stored therein from that moment onward. The password is automatically keyed to a secret set of numbers unique to each device, and impossible to hack. Even if a forensics investigator were able to enter via a backdoor, all he or she would see is indecipherable, encrypted gibberish.
It is questionable — for now, at least — whether the FBI or U.S. Department of Justice will find sufficient Congressional support to move the hands of the clock back on Apple’s and Google’s pivotal, and arguably history-making move to make mobile devices virtually impenetrable. The outcome of any further fight against encryption is already decided. Yet the Director, in a move vaguely reminiscent of Napoleon’s vain effort to mobilize France after Waterloo, soldiers on. The odds don’t favor him.
Friends on Capitol Hill?
The last time rumors surfaced on an update of CALEA, called “CALEA II,” the idea was quickly scotched. At the time, the U.S. Department of Justice was concerned over social media, peer-to-peer and certain broadband services being outside the scope of lawful intercept. That was Springtime 2013. Once Snowden broke his first NSA leak, any thought of promoting legislation to extend surveillance powers became verboten.
The very idea of CALEA II roused immediate howls of protest from Congressional leaders and privacy advocates, even though the bill was never more than a rumor. No draft legislation ever came to light. Likewise, Director Comey’s proposed changes to CALEA are still in the idea stage. The Obama Administration does not, to anyone’s knowledge, have draft legislation on CALEA II in the works.
Should supporters of a CALEA II move forward, the process for proposing and enacting new legislation is straightforward and stands on precedent. Congress has on several occasions approved — and Presidents have signed — changes that improve location-finding capabilities for first responders.
However, proposals to amend CALEA to ensure law enforcement’s ability to make mobile devices “wiretap-ready” would find a different reception on Capitol Hill, where the governing attitude toward any pro-surveillance measure, at present, can best be described as “poisonous.”
And, really, why stage a frontal attack on encryption when you can flank it?
Network-Based Lawful Intercept Still Rules
One offshoot of Apple’s highly successful PR campaign on iOS 8 encryption is the misconception that it extends beyond the device. Even while Director Comey held forth at Brookings, audience members could be heard whispering about the wonders of the new “Apple network.”
Of course, there is no thing. iOS 8 encryption, and comparable encryption soon to be deployed on Android units, apply to the device itself — not to any transmissions that emanate or terminate there. Unless the customer or target uses Tor, Silent Circle or similar network encryption tools, anything communicated is largely “in the clear.” Most users don’t appear to care. Criminals, when they take the time or worry about it, simply resort to throw-away phones. You don’t find the average gang leader, dope peddler or impulse felon planning his or her crimes via Tor.
The number of directly-connecting Tor users, while large as a group and often rife with suspect individuals, is comparatively tiny versus the overall universe of mobile customers, fluctuating between 2.5 million and roughly 2.8 million on an given day for the current calendar year [Source: Tor Metrics Users]. Tor users are concentrated in 10 countries, with the U.S. being the most active, with some 350,000 mean daily users, or roughly 15.09 percent of the worldwide total.
Given the extreme difficulty of “brute force” attacks, the effort involved in deciphering encrypted communications is costly, resource intensive and often ineffective. Local police lack the wherewithal to address it on their own, and only in exceptional instances will they win an appeal for assistance from the Fort Meade, the NSA’s center for handling decryption in national security matters.
At issue: How often do they really need a helping hand? Today, despite the extensive variety of new communications tools available — Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin and so on — common email is still the most popular “killer app” of the business community. Most emails are sent and received in the clear even when the email system used offers an encryption feature. As an example, although email encryption tools are broadly available in programs such as Microsoft Windows 365, they do not work automatically. The user must set up encryption himself, or have it done by the network admin. Most don’t bother.
While sophisticated criminals can and do use encryption — look at all the child pornographers and purported “assassins for hire” who operate in the open on Tor sites — most common criminals don’t make the effort, or when they do, often make mistakes that reveal their identity.
The “Tor envy” that pervades the law enforcement community may be overblown. While nobody denies that Silicon Valley’s Great Wall of Algorithms has placed a harsh new burden on law enforcement, mobile forensics has never been the end-all, be-all of evidence gathering. The uptick in successful prosecutions in recent years based on evidence gathered purely from lawful intercept proves that CALEA works. As the doorway on mobile forensics closes to a crack, the rational approach is to make maximum use of the alternative: interception over the net.
http://www.insidersurveillance.com/will-apple-ios8-encryption-spur-demand-lawful-intercept/
Tech Roundup: Social Media, User Data And Law Enforcement
Sat, Oct 11, 2014
Some dramatic developments this week in technology news. Twitter sued the U.S. government. Apple and the FBI got into a fight over encryption. And Snapchat appears to have been hacked. NPR's Steve Henn has been covering these stories this week. So Steve, you see a common theme here.
STEVE HENN, BYLINE: You know, I do. I think the theme is that all of these stories touch on either encryption, security or free speech. They're tied together in kind of an interesting way. Right now, most big tech companies that are serious about making users' communication safe and private have embraced encryption - powerful encryption. And I don't think tech companies are doing this to make it impossible to comply with lawful requests and criminal investigations. I think the reason they want to do this is that when encryption is used properly it makes all of our communications more secure.
I mean, you mentioned Snapchat. Now, it's unclear that Snapchat was really hacked or whether or not this was a hoax. But hackers on 4chan claimed to have obtained tens of thousands of photos - explicit photos - possibly of minors through attacking a so-called third-party app. You know, this is the kind of thing that just strikes terror into the heart of tech executives and frankly their customers. And it's the type of attack that strong, well-implemented encryption can make a lot harder to pull off.
RATH: But you know, we've heard from law enforcement this week, from the FBI, that that kind of airtight encryption lets criminals - terrorists even - plot in secrecy. That there needs to be a backdoor for law enforcement to get around encryption in those cases.
HENN: Yeah, law enforcement has argued aggressively for these kinds of backdoors for years. But most security experts I've spoken to respond that if you build a backdoor into a service, it's not just law enforcement that can walk through, that other people often can exploit the same technologies to get at communications illegally. It just fundamentally makes these systems more insecure.
RATH: Well, how much are Apple, Twitter, any of these companies legally required to cooperate with law enforcement?
HENN: You know, this is a really complicated and evolving area of the law. And right now, honestly, there could be legal precedence in the national security space that we don't know about because those cases are litigated in the FISA court - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - and are classified.
But here are the basics. So obviously any company has to obey a valid court order and telephone services, you know. Remember voice calls? People in that business are required to install technology that makes it possible for law enforcement to intercept the calls and listen in.
They also have to do something to make it possible for law enforcement to know who is connecting with whom. That's called track and trace in this community. And the U.S. Patriot Act extended that requirement to Internet service providers and companies like Twitter.
But none of these laws require companies to decode any encrypted communications that are intercepted. And certainly, right now at least, these laws don't apply to mobile phones or personal devices that are sold directly to consumers. So if Apple and Google make this decision to encrypt everything on your phone, that's not illegal. And frankly, most legal experts I've talked to say really it's a matter of free speech. I mean, if you want to talk in code, you're legally allowed to talk in code.
RATH: Speaking of rights and free speech, that brings us to the Twitter case. Could you explain their free speech argument and the case they brought against the Justice Department this week?
HENN: So in the case of Twitter, the company's arguing it should be allowed to tell the public more about the kinds of legal requests for information it's receiving from the U.S. government.
RATH: What kind of requests are they talking about?
HENN: Well, they run the gamut - from routine subpoenas to national security letters and requests from this Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. And for years, technology companies were forbidden from disclosing that they had received NSLs or FISA court orders.
This year, many tech companies reached a compromise with the Justice Department that allows them to talk about this in broad strokes. Twitter is arguing that's not good enough. They say that simply disclosing the number and type of court orders they receive won't compromise investigations and really is their First Amendment right.
RATH: NPR's Steve Henn. Steve, thank you.
http://www.npr.org/2014/10/11/355432708/tech-roundup-social-media-user-data-and-law-enforcement
Average Cost Of Cybercrime In US Climbs To $12.7 Million
By: Amanda Vicinanzo, Senior Editor
10/09/2014 ( 5:24pm)
http://www.hstoday.us/briefings/industry-news/single-article/average-cost-of-cybercrime-in-us-climbs-to-127-million/a0c2ea705f637da6f005a10f0d04b9dd.html
After ringing in the New Year with the Target breach—which reportedly resulted in the theft of information from 40 million payment cards—the number of cyber attacks continued to climb in 2014. Accompanying the increase in attacks was a rise in the cost of cyber crime, with the average cost of a crime in the US reaching $12.7 million, compared to $11.56 million reported in 2013.
The Ponemon Institute—which conducts independent research on privacy, data protection, and information security policy—conducted a survey of 2,000 participants at 257 companies in seven countries to evaluate the cost of cyber crime to companies.
Sponsored by American information technology provider Hewlett-Packard (HP), the 2014 Cost of Cyber Crime Study: United States, found that out of the seven countries surveyed—United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Japan, France and the Russian Federation— the US reports the highest total average cost of cyber crime.
“The study serves to raise awareness around the reality of cyber crime, by industry, across the globe,” Frank Mong, HP vice president and general manager, solutions, Enterprise Security Products, told Homeland Security Today. “It is our hope that organizations realize that threats are becoming more frequent and more sophisticated, and gain an understanding from the findings how they should prioritize their security investments.”
Surveying 59 US-based organizations, the Ponemon Institute discovered that the total annualized cost of US cyber crime in 2014 ranged from a low of $1.6 million to a high of $60.5 million. The highest cost estimate of nearly $61 million was determined not to be an outlier based on additional analysis.
The report indicated the most costly cyber crimes are those caused by denial of services (DoS) attacks, malicious insiders and malicious code. These attacks account for more than 55 percent of all cyber crime costs per organization on an annual basis. In particular, attacks by malicious insiders—which include employees, temporary employees, contractors and business partners—rose by more than $31,000 over the five-year average. The least costly are botnets, viruses, worms, trojans and malware.
The size of an organization also contributed to the cost of the cyber attack, according to the report. Smaller organizations experience a higher proportion of cyber crime costs relating to web-based attacks, phishing and social engineering while larger organizations experience a higher proportion of costs relating to malicious code and DoS.
Regardless of the size of an organization, the cost of cyber crime impacts all industries. The report found the cost of cyber crime in the energy and utilities, technology and retail industries rose significantly as compared to the previous five years the study has been conducted. Organizations in consumer products, healthcare and hospitality appear to have a lower overall cyber crime cost over five years.
While attacks always incur high costs, the longer they persist the more companies must spend to counter them. Organizations are taking a mean number of 45 days at an average cost of $35,647 per day—a total cost of $1,593,627 over the 45-day period—to remediate the attacks. This represents a 33 percent increase from last year’s cost estimate of $1,035,769.
Mong asserted that the first step to lowering the cost of cyber crime is for organizations to not only recognize their vulnerability to a security breach, but to also admit that one has likely already occurred within their organization.
“It's important that organizations recognize and overcome the stigma of admitting they are vulnerable and that they have likely already suffered a security breach,” Mong said. “Once organizations accept this as reality, they then have to understand how to address it. Many focus solely on keeping the adversary out, when it is likely that the adversary is already in. This is a call to action for more focus on detection and containment.”
The study also indicated that a strong security posture moderates the cost of cyber attacks. Ponemon rates an organization’s security posture based on a system called the Security Effectiveness Score (SES) index. The higher the organization scores on the index, the average cost to mitigate a cyber attack decreases substantially.
In addition, the report indicated organizations save $1.7 million on average by deploying good security governance practices. According to the study, “Companies that invest in adequate resources, appoint a high-level security leader, and employ certified or expert staff have cyber crime costs that are lower than companies that have not implemented these practices.”
Organizations that deploy security intelligence technologies—including security information and event management (SIEM), intrusion prevention systems and applications security testing solutions— realize a lower annualized cost of cyber crime. Findings indicate the companies using security intelligence technologies were more efficient in detecting and containing cyber attacks, leading to an average cost savings of $5.3 million when compared to companies not deploying security intelligence technologies.
In addition, security intelligence systems have the biggest return on investment (ROI). At 30 percent, companies deploying security intelligence systems, on average, experienced a substantially higher ROI than all other technology categories presented.
“Specifically, the data tells us that organizations experience the most return when focusing incremental spending on security intelligence systems (including SIEM), extensive deployment of encryption technology and advanced perimeter controls,” Mong said. “The study is clear that these areas deliver significant ROI, and can have a direct impact on minimizing the cost of cyber crime.”
Mong hopes the study will heighten awareness of the need to deploy security intelligence systems along with enterprise security governance practices to moderate the cost of cyber crime.
“While there are no ‘silver bullets,’” he said, “the study clearly shows that the deployment of security intelligence systems (like SIEM) along with enterprise security governance practices directly moderates the cost of cyber-crime. Those organizations that do employ advanced security technologies experience on average $2.6 million in cost savings per breach compared with those organizations that don't.”
Lawful Interception Market is Expected to Reach $2.1 Billion, Globally, by 2020 - Allied Market Research
PORTLAND, Oregon, October 6, 2014 /PRNewswire/ --
According to a new report by Allied Market Research, titled "Global Lawful Interception Market (Solutions, Components, Network Technology, Communication Technology, End User, and Geography)- Opportunity Analysis and Forecast-2013-2020", the global lawful interception market is forecast to reach $2.1 billion by 2020, growing at a CAGR of 20.8% during the forecast period (2014 - 2020). Increasing crime rate in the emerging economies such as China, India and African countries would steer the necessity for lawful interceptions.
Lawful interception is considered to be a powerful instrument for fighting crime and helping in maintaining law & order. Audio & video calls, emails, text messages, MMS, digital images, social media chats, facsimile and others are some of the various types of communication technologies, which are intercepted by authorities for tracking illegal activities and collecting evidences.
To view the report, visit the website at http://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/lawful-interception-market
Aiding for lawful interception has become mandatory for the network providers due to the laws drafted by the governments of various nations. European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions/ American Standardization Institution (ANSI/ ATIS), SORM and CableLabs/ PacketCable are some of the institutions/bodies that have set rules and standards for carrying out LI efficiently. Various countries across the globe follow these standards and adhere to the norms set by the regulatory bodies in their respective regions.
Lawful interception (LI) market is witnessing tremendous growth and is speedily picking pace in its lifecycle. Based on the technological strength, it can be safely assumed that LI will be a prominent part of telecommunication market in the years to come. The probable growth that is forecast in the LI market is anticipated based on the rising criminal activities which are carried out over the communication networks using sophisticated communication devices. The growing criminal activities have directly led to the rise in number of interceptions carried out over the communication channels. Additionally, growing adoption of Next Generation Network technology (NGN) will facilitate lawful interception of voice/video calls, text messages, chats, etc. by channelizing these forms of communication over a single network. Audio call interception had the highest revenue during 2013, which accounted for about 32% of the overall market. Video interception is expected to be the fastest growing market segment projecting a CAGR of 33.3% during the 2013-2020.
View all reports related to Information and Communication Technology, visit the website athttp://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/information-&-communication-technology-&-media-market-report
The file transfer applications are expected to experience the increased lawful interception activities. Due to rapid growth and significant large scale adoption of digital file interception; the file transfer interception is expected to be most prominent market by 2020. The telephonic communications (PSTN) would reduce over the period. However, rising mobile communications and VoIP calls would maintain the market potency of the voice communication in interception. The VoIP solutions are increasingly being used for conversations due to free applications such as Skype, Google Talk, etc. Numerous enterprises are implementing IP telephonic systems within their premises for communication purposes. Such personal and official communications would be key factor driving the interception of voice communication.
The data downloads, and text messaging is another attractive area of interception. The law enforcement agencies often intercept the text messaging, due to ability to carry more information in small volumes of data. Individuals prefer text messaging over voice conservation due to lesser cost and data requirement. Critical information could be communicated in casual text chatting. Due to this, the interception over text messages is implemented by LEAs.
The report profiles major players in the lawful interception market, namely Aqsacom, Cisco Systems, Inc., Incognito, Net Optics, Inc., Utimaco, Netscout, ZTE Corporation, Siemens AG, SS8 Incorporation, Verint, JSI Telecom, RSA NetWitness Corporation, Nice, BAE Systems, Fire Eye and Rohde & Schwarz. Verint Systems leads global market for lawful interception with about 1/3rd of market revenue and has its reach across the globe. In June 2014, Verint announced the expansion of Verint Nextiva Portfolio, which will help in enhancing business intelligence and security solutions in order to avoid frauds and losses. On similar grounds, Nice Systems recently announced the launch of NICE Engagement platform. The launch of this Engagement platform has provided Nice Systems the next generation capture platform technology, which supports 100% real time content analytics. The proposed platform will serve as a real time solution that would assist the law enforcement agencies in effectively executing strategies to counter criminal activities.
About Us:
Allied Market Research (AMR) is a full-service market research and business-consulting wing of Allied Analytics LLP based inPortland, Oregon. Allied Market Research provides global enterprises as well as medium and small businesses with unmatched quality of "Market Research Reports" and "Business Intelligence Solutions". AMR has a targeted view to provide business insights and consulting to assist its clients to make strategic business decisions and achieve sustainable growth in their respective market domain.
We are in professional corporate relations with various companies and this helps us in digging out market data that helps us generate accurate research data tables and confirms utmost accuracy in our market forecasting. Each and every data presented in the reports published by us is extracted through primary interviews with top officials from leading companies of domain concerned. Our secondary data procurement methodology includes deep online and offline research and discussion with knowledgeable professionals and analysts in the industry.
Contact:
Cathy Viber
5933 NE Win Sivers Drive
#205, Portland, OR 97220
United States.
Direct: +1(503)505-6949
Toll Free: +1(855)711-1555 (U.S. & Canada)
Fax: +1(855)550-5975
Email: query@alliedmarketresearch.com
Web: http://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/
SOURCE Allied Market Research
WebRTC Solutions Industry News
[September 23, 2014]
Voip-Pal.com's Engagement of Southbank Capital Announced to the Public by Southbank in Australia
http://www.webrtc-solutions.com/news/2014/09/23/8030897.htm
Wheelings and Dealings: Southbank Capital to Sell Voip-Pal.com
September 24, 2014
By David Delony Contributing Writer
Southbank Capital, a corporate investment and advising firm based in Melbourne, Australia, has announced that it is selling Voip-Pal.com.
"Voip-Pal.com has an amazing collection of strategic patents that could potentially create a new worldwide Telco overnight for the company that owns these assets which have the ability to monetize VOIP," Southbank CEO Francis Galbally said.
"The Board and management of Voip-Pal are pleased with the progress being achieved by Southbank in the anticipated sale. They have a keen understanding of the Company's patented technology and its potential value,” Voip-Pal.com CEO and chairman Thomas Sawyer said.
Voip-Pal.com and Southbank had signed an engagement letter earlier this month to sell the company.
VoIP-Pal was also granted a patent earlier this year for routing, billing and rating in July. The patent brought the total number of patents issued to the company to six.
The company primarily deals with VoIP patent acquisition. Voip-Pal acquired Digifonica Gibraltar earlier this year. The company’s patent portfolio at the time of the acquisition was valued to be approximately $200 million.
As more business switch over to VoIP from traditional phone lines, Voip-Pal will make an attractive acquisition in turn, as it will let carriers who buy the company to offer features that their competitors can’t, making them more competitive.
“Revenues from this newly acquired patent portfolio will be derived from applying the technology to our own operations, future royalties through licensing agreements, and a white label program,” Dennis Chang, Voip-Pal president, said at the time.
One of the company’s major offerings is the ability of mobile and PC users to access business VoIP networks through their devices.
http://sip-trunking.tmcnet.com/topics/sip-trunking/articles/389657-wheelings-dealings-southbank-capital-sell-voip-palcom.htm
Southbank Capital Secures Trident Energy for Mosman Oil
http://prwire.com.au/pr/46800/southbank-capital-secures-trident-energy-for-mosman-oil
VPLM & The Right and the Ability to Spy
Feb 8, 2014 Posted By Tony In General
One of the more topical issues discussed by various media sources both on the internet and in print is that of privacy. We don’t live in glass houses because for one, actual glass isn’t safe. Of course, the other big reason is that it would completely strip us of our privacy. Some things we do behind closed doors most feel are not meant to be shared with the rest of the world.
We want privacy not necessarily because we are doing wrong, but because of comfort. This is why the NSA data collection effort has shaken so many people. It took some time but the government didadmit to collecting certain information from telephone and data services then promised a better solution. Though still a work in progress, an effort is underway to implement a compromise that should make everyone happy.
Instilling supreme happiness among the masses is a very unlikely scenario. It has to start with education with honest facts about data collection. Many are scared simply because of a lack of understanding. Further, obscure definitions for legal/lawful interception as well as data services are complicating matters. Understanding existing and emerging technologies will be critical for current and future lawmakers for the sake of both the integrity of the institution and mostly, the people who are governed by such laws.
The laws that be
Even though most VoIP transmissions are encrypted, agencies that govern communications are seeking to collect some sort of data from such services. The push to classify all VoIP communications as Telco is an effort that is creating an air of controversy. The argument is made that although the technology differs for internet communications the exact same task is accomplished when compared to a call made over a telephone line.
The counter argument to the FCC monitoring and NSA collection of data is phone calls should not be tapped nor should they be recorded in the first place. A loosely defined narrative has been recycled for various surveillance efforts starting with 1927 Radio Act that warrants the use of surveillance for people suspected of crimes and to monitor possible or existing terrorists.
Now, this federal issue is trickling down to state level legislation. Lobbyists in Iowa and Vermont are pushing for additional deregulationon VoIP services. If you were not already aware, you should know that these are the only two states that have any sort of authority over such communications. These lobbyists are there on behalf of major providers like AT&T who is spearheading the charge with many other telecom companies following in support of the cause.
The nature of deregulation
To say that something will be deregulated may lead to confusion as it seems to imply that it is completely decommissioned from any sort of governance. The main effort is to try to have the services regulated the same as wireless. This would simplify the process and hopefully remove the possibility of the government abusing the potential high amount of data that could be collected from a VoIP service if some law were to take effect that would allow full use of data transmitted during such communication. However, those standing in opposition speculate companies could potentially misuse the loose reigns granted by less regulation. It will truly depend on exactly what terms would be set when removing or altering regulation in these states.
Because they can spy
So how is it possible that the government is able to spy in the first place? In some cases, it is because a technology is deployed known as packet capture device. We have been covering one of the more prominent players in this particular market in particular, the company Voip-Pal. They developed a patent that has been processed and inducted as a legitimate trademark in the telecom industry.
Essentially, having this patent means that the company Voip-Pal and the subsidiary Digifinoica LTD, which filed on behalf of the formerly mentioned company, is the authority on the subject of intercepting information service data. As VoIP is still classified as an information service, this company will have a form of command over companies that are using some technology defined within this patent to collect data from users transmitting data (e.g. a phone call) over the internet.
This doesn’t necessarily grant the right to a business to spy. As we know telecoms are already engaging in such behavior, this patent could potentially be prohibitive to existing efforts. Yet, Voip-Pal has yet to identify a clear political direction for this endeavor. It could be that the company is truly seeking to take the side of the consumer where the majority wishes for complete transparency. The company has yet to convey a true political affiliation so it is important at this point in time to consider all possibilities.
But will they spy?
With such a patent, this could change how existing efforts will transform in the future. The company could enforce the rights granted to them with this patent and request telecoms cease use of this technology, pay some kind of fee or possibly purchase a proprietary device in place of an existing device. It’s uncertain as to what action will be taken right now.
This patent could become a political bargaining chip for future actions. Most likely, at this point in time the patent will be used to claim a certain fee from providers or agencies using such a device. As Voip-Pal is now the patentee, they have the right to exclude future provisioning without permission should another company attempt to sell a lawful interception device. It will be interesting to see how these devices will evolve now that Voip-Pal controls the rights to LI technology.
http://www.whichvoip.com/blog/right-and-ability.html
Rich Inza just replied to my email, board and their legal on it!
Same announcement with Alere Inc.
Alere Inc. Stockholders Encouraged to Contact Securities Law Firm about Takeover
Date : 09/19/2014 @ 10:31AM
Source : PR Newswire (US)
Stock : Alere Inc. (ALR)
Quote : 39.74 -0.07 (-0.18%) @ 11:03AM
Alere Inc. Stockholders Encouraged to Contact Securities Law Firm about Takeover
Print
Alert
Alere Inc. (NYSE:ALR)
Intraday Stock Chart
Today : Friday 19 September 2014
Click Here for more Alere Inc. Charts.
NEW YORK, Sept. 19, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Securities lawyers at Dunnam & Dunnam are investigating the board of Alere Inc. (NYSE MKT: ALR) in connection with a buyout by former CEO Ron Zwanziger. Concerned ALR investors are encouraged to contact attorney Hamilton Lindley by clicking here.
ALR's former CEO Ron Zwanziger wants to buy Alere and take it private for $46.00 per share. The law firm is investigating the board for potential breaches of fiduciary duty.
Dunnam & Dunnam has significant experience representing shareholders in securities lawsuits nationwide. ALR stockholders – or anyone with knowledge about this situation – should contact lawyer Hamilton Lindley at hlindley@dunnamlaw.com with questions, toll free at (844) 702-2990 or visit http://www.dunnamlaw.com/ALR.
SOURCE Dunnam & Dunnam
Copyright 2014 PR Newswire
Just read an article where it states that Microsoft are expanding their encryption across their services to be in place by end of 2014.
Reinforcing legal protections for their customers' data. Enhancing the transparency of their software code, making it easier for customers to reassure themselves that their products do not contain back doors.
In this article it goes on to list Microsoft's pledge to expand encryption:
-Customer content moving between our customers and Microsoft will be encrypted by default.
-All of our key platform, productivity and communications services will encrypt customer content as it moves between our data centers.
-We will use best-in-class industry cryptography to protect these channels, including Perfect Forward Secrecy and 2048-bit key lengths.
-All of this will be in place by the end of 2014, and much of it is effective immediately.
-We also will encrypt customer content that we store. In some cases, such as third-party services developed to run on Windows Azure, we'll leave the choice to developers, but will offer the tools to allow them to easily protect data.
-We're working with other companies across the industry to ensure that data traveling between services - from one email provider to another, for instance - is protected."
Just my thoughts but the first one was...VPLM's patents?
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2225957/microsoft-subnet/microsoft-fails-to-mention-skype-in-promises-to-protect-users-from-nsa-surveillance.html
There's a Motley Fool article on VPLM
http://www.fool.com/investing/businesswire/2013/08/14/voip-palcom-discusses-united-states-governments-pr.aspx
Very much appreciated. Thank you!
Lawful Interception Market Worth $1,342.4 Million by 2019
DALLAS, Aug 12, 2014 (PR Newswire Europe via COMTEX) -- DALLAS, August 12, 2014 /PRNewswire/ --
The report "Lawful Interception Market by Network Technologies and Devices (VOIP, LTE, WLAN, WIMAX, DSL, PSTN, ISDN, CDMA, GSM, GPRS, Mediation Devices, Routers, Management Servers); Communication Content; End Users - Global Advancement, Worldwide Forecast & Analysis (2014-2019)" by MarketsandMarkets, defines and segments the LI market on the basis of devices, network technologies, communication content, and services with in-depth analysis and forecasting of revenues. It also identifies drivers and restraints for this market with insights on trends, opportunities, and challenges.
Browse 80 market tables and 23 figures spread through 177 pages and in-depth TOC on "Lawful Interception Market"
http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/lawful-interception-market-1264.html
Early buyers will receive 10% customization on this report.
Lawful Interception (LI) has been proven to be very helpful for the security agencies or Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) for combating terrorism and criminal activities. Across the world, countries have adopted such legislative regulations and made it compulsory for the operators to make LI-enabled communication network. Since the advancement of communication channels and network technologies over the period of time, the interception techniques have also enhanced for variety of communications such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), web-traffic, Electronic Mail (Email), and more. Now, the interception is possible for all networks that deliver voice, data, and Internet services.
Sophisticated communication channels and advanced network technologies are the major driving factors for the LI market. Nowadays, communication can be done in various forms such as voice, text, video, and many more. To transfer these types of data, network technologies need to constantly upgrade. The different types of network technologies that can be intercepted are VoIP, LTE, WLAN, WiMax, DSL, PSTN, ISDN, CDMA, GSM, and GPRS, are discussed in this report.
MarketsandMarkets has broadly segmented the LI market by devices such as management servers, mediation devices, Intercept Access Points (IAP), switches, routers, gateways, and Handover Interfaces (HIs). The LI market is also segmented on the basis of communication contents and networking technology. By regions: North America (NA), Europe (EU), Asia Pacific (APAC), Middle East and Africa (MEA), and Latin America (LA).
The LI market is expected to grow at a rapid pace in the regional markets of APAC and MEA. The investments in security in APAC and MEA are attracting the players operating in the LI market. These regions would also be the highest revenue generating markets in the years to come. Considerable growth is expected in the NA and European LI markets. New wireless network and network technologies like LTE, WiMax, NGN, and many more are expected to be the emerging technological trends in the LI market.
Inquiry before buying @http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Enquiry_Before_Buying.asp?id=1264
MarketsandMarkets forecasts the Lawful Interception Market to grow from $251.5 million in 2014 to $1,342.4 million by 2019. In terms of regions, North America and Europe are expected to be the biggest markets in terms of revenue contribution, while Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa, and Latin America are expected to experience increased market traction, during the forecast period.
Browse Related Reports
Identity and Access Management (IAM) Market [(On Premise, Cloud IAM), By Components (Provisioning, Directories, SSO, Advanced Authentication, Password Management, Audit, Compliance & Governance)] - Global Advancements, Forecast & Analysis (2013-2018)
http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/identity-access-management-iam-market-1168.html
Network Configuration and Change Management (NCCM) Market [Components (Software, Services (Support, Consulting)), Deployment (On-premise, On-demand), User Types (SME, Enterprises)] - Global Advancements, Worldwide Forecasts & Analysis (2014 - 2019)
http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/network-configuration-change-management-market-265683558.html
About MarketsandMarkets
MarketsandMarkets is a global market research and consulting company based in the U.S. We publish strategically analyzed market research reports and serve as a business intelligence partner to Fortune 500 companies across the world.
MarketsandMarkets also provides multi-client reports, company profiles, databases, and custom research services. MarketsandMarkets covers thirteen industry verticals; including advanced materials, automotives and transportation, banking and financial services, biotechnology, chemicals, consumer goods, telecommunications and IT, energy and power, food and beverages, industrial automation, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, semiconductor and electronics, aerospace & defense.
We at MarketsandMarkets are inspired to help our clients grow by providing apt business insight with our huge market intelligence repository.
Contact: Mr. Rohan North - Dominion Plaza 17304 Preston Road Suite 800, Dallas, TX 75252 Tel: +1-888-600-6441 Email: sales@marketsandmarkets.com Visit MarketsandMarkets Blog @http://www.marketsandmarketsblog.com/market-reports/telecom-it
Copyright (C) 2014 PR Newswire Europe
Voip-Pal controls the rights to LI technology
One of the more topical issues discussed by various media sources both on the internet and in print is that of privacy. We don’t live in glass houses because for one, actual glass isn’t safe. Of course, the other big reason is that it would completely strip us of our privacy. Some things we do behind closed doors most feel are not meant to be shared with the rest of the world.
We want privacy not necessarily because we are doing wrong, but because of comfort. This is why the NSA data collection effort has shaken so many people. It took some time but the government did admit to collecting certain information from telephone and data services then promised a better solution. Though still a work in progress, an effort is underway to implement a compromise that should make everyone happy.
Instilling supreme happiness among the masses is a very unlikely scenario. It has to start with education with honest facts about data collection. Many are scared simply because of a lack of understanding. Further, obscure definitions for legal/lawful interception as well as data services are complicating matters. Understanding existing and emerging technologies will be critical for current and future lawmakers for the sake of both the integrity of the institution and mostly, the people who are governed by such laws.
The laws that be
Even though most VoIP transmissions are encrypted, agencies that govern communications are seeking to collect some sort of data from such services. The push to classify all VoIP communications as Telco is an effort that is creating an air of controversy. The argument is made that although the technology differs for internet communications the exact same task is accomplished when compared to a call made over a telephone line.
The counter argument to the FCC monitoring and NSA collection of data is phone calls should not be tapped nor should they be recorded in the first place. A loosely defined narrative has been recycled for various surveillance efforts starting with 1927 Radio Act that warrants the use of surveillance for people suspected of crimes and to monitor possible or existing terrorists.
Now, this federal issue is trickling down to state level legislation. Lobbyists in Iowa and Vermont are pushing for additional deregulation on VoIP services. If you were not already aware, you should know that these are the only two states that have any sort of authority over such communications. These lobbyists are there on behalf of major providers like AT&T who is spearheading the charge with many other telecom companies following in support of the cause.
The nature of deregulation
To say that something will be deregulated may lead to confusion as it seems to imply that it is completely decommissioned from any sort of governance. The main effort is to try to have the services regulated the same as wireless. This would simplify the process and hopefully remove the possibility of the government abusing the potential high amount of data that could be collected from a VoIP service if some law were to take effect that would allow full use of data transmitted during such communication. However, those standing in opposition speculate companies could potentially misuse the loose reigns granted by less regulation. It will truly depend on exactly what terms would be set when removing or altering regulation in these states.
Because they can spy
So how is it possible that the government is able to spy in the first place? In some cases, it is because a technology is deployed known as packet capture device. We have been covering one of the more prominent players in this particular market in particular, the company Voip-Pal. They developed a patent that has been processed and inducted as a legitimate trademark in the telecom industry.
Essentially, having this patent means that the company Voip-Pal and the subsidiary Digifinoica LTD, which filed on behalf of the formerly mentioned company, is the authority on the subject of intercepting information service data. As VoIP is still classified as an information service, this company will have a form of command over companies that are using some technology defined within this patent to collect data from users transmitting data (e.g. a phone call) over the internet.
This doesn’t necessarily grant the right to a business to spy. As we know telecoms are already engaging in such behavior, this patent could potentially be prohibitive to existing efforts. Yet, Voip-Pal has yet to identify a clear political direction for this endeavor. It could be that the company is truly seeking to take the side of the consumer where the majority wishes for complete transparency. The company has yet to convey a true political affiliation so it is important at this point in time to consider all possibilities.
But will they spy?
With such a patent, this could change how existing efforts will transform in the future. The company could enforce the rights granted to them with this patent and request telecoms cease use of this technology, pay some kind of fee or possibly purchase a proprietary device in place of an existing device. It’s uncertain as to what action will be taken right now.
This patent could become a political bargaining chip for future actions. Most likely, at this point in time the patent will be used to claim a certain fee from providers or agencies using such a device. As Voip-Pal is now the patentee, they have the right to exclude future provisioning without permission should another company attempt to sell a lawful interception device. It will be interesting to see how these devices will evolve now that Voip-Pal controls the rights to LI technology.
http://www.whichvoip.com/blog/right-and-ability.html
Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google indicated that the mobile trend has seen a significant increase and is poised to stand out in 2014. He also indicated that Voip-Pal has the patented technology that will see it emerge as the leading player in the rapidly growing roaming internet.
http://www.biz-news.com/voip/the-uspto-offers-an-issue-date-for-mobile-gateway-patent-for-voip-pal-com/#.U9_c5B86rQo.mailto
Excellent analogy! Should get it pinned. Looks like a Shelby GT350 R Thanks jimr1717
CALEA Non-Compliance:New Risk to National Security?
“Go to jail. Do not pass ‘go.’ Pay $10,000 per day.” That’s the message to those who flunk a new web-based “risk assessment” that tests compliance with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). The author, a CALEA solutions provider, wants to raise awareness of what can go wrong for a communications company that fails to meet its legal obligations. Though it’s not their intention, the test also draws attention to weaknesses in America’s surveillance safety net that could lead to future problems for national security.
What prompted creation of a “risk assessment”? In recent months the quiz masters have encountered communications service providers that seem oblivious to their CALEA compliance obligations. Some flat out deny the law applies to them. The chief CALEA scofflaws: providers of cloud communications or “rich” communications services that connect with the PSTN, and thus are, in fact, under the law’s domain and required to deploy technology solutions that will support court-ordered lawful intercept.
See the full article:
http://www.insidersurveillance.com/calea-non-compliance-new-risk-national-security/
Here is an interesting Smartphone Royalties read
"The Smartphone Royalty Stack "
http://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content/Editorial/Publications/Documents/The-Smartphone-Royalty-Stack-Armstrong-Mueller-Syrett.pdf
Modification Date:
5/29/2014, 9:15:45 AM
Page Count:69
By 2017 more than 1 billion people will be using mobile VoIP through smartphone apps.
http://www.tatacommunications.com/article/tata-communications-launches-mobile-voip-platform-bolster-converged-communications
$VPLM This is a good read as well
http://www.rtinvest.com/new/discussion/topic/1297/