We need to find the proper balance among privacy, security, and law enforcement interests. Expectedly since wiretapping has always been a complex endeavor. With are rapid changes of communications and technology quickly reshaping the way people interact, the nation must frequently re-examine its laws to ensure equilibrium among the people and the nation. But as for now the only thing we can do is sit back and wait. For things like this protocol about "wiretapping provisions into standard Internet protocols", such as Ipv6; the most specifically is the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). CALEA, a federal law in 1994 introduced, that all telecommunication carriers were require to build a wiretapping capability into their phone systems, if they didn't comply, they would be fined up to $10,000 per day. The proposal did receive, an opposition from organizations such as the CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology), IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force), and EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) who sees the provision as undermining network securities without preventing any crime. Here is an example of wiretapping: In 1928, Roy Olmstead was caught by the police, running a $2 million a year bootlegging operation, he was convicted solely on his conversations that had been tapped, and that the basis of evidence was obtained without warrants. Never the less wiretaps were installed by federal agents. Olmstead's appeal went all the way to the Supreme Court, the first to hear anything on a wiretapping decisions; Olmstead v. United States, where the court ruled that the evidence obtained from tapping Olmstead's phone calls did not involve any trespass. The other five justices agreed that the Fourth Amendment, which is when a person is search and so is their property; and a seize objects documents and contraband (illegal drugs or weapons). This give the cops to go into your house and look around and there is nothing you can do about it, but of course there has to be probable cause.