Subject: [Raven] Jurisdictionally scoped policy, limit problem (mobile & e2e)

From: Eric Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 11:50:35 -0500

Question #1

  "should the IETF develop new protocols or modify existing protocols
  to support mechanisms whose primary purpose is to support wiretapping
  or other law enforcement activities"

Comment

The mechanisms in question are asserted to be requirements for specific,
jurisdictionally scoped policies ("wiretap or other law enforcement
activities"). The jurisdictional applicability (JA) of a jurisdictionally
scoped policy (JSP) when applied to stationary network elements which
supply transit services (routers) is presumed. The JA of a JSP when
applied to the end-to-end instance of communication, independent of the
JA to the end-points of the communication, is also presumed. Neither of
these presumptions is generally valid.

Network elements which supply transit services may be jurisdictionally
ambiguous, or indeterminate, exhibiting trans- or extra-jurisdictional
locality properties (mobility or high-seas, respectively). The problem
of spatial association (jurisdiction) to ip addressability (capability
to apply an NMS originating polity assertion) is not yet attempted by
the IETF.

End-to-end instances of communication are, as a legal writer on the
question of Internet Gaming remarked, trans-, extra-, even supra-
jurisdictional in nature, and therefore presents considerable challenges
to policy interests. The problem of transitive jurisdictional closure,
hence of jurisdictional applicability, to instances of communication 
which are jurisdictionally ambiguous, or indeterminate, is beyond the
scope of the IETF.

Conclusion
  
Absent the existence of mechanisms to ensure the jurisdictional
applicability of jurisdictionally scoped policy assertions on
jurisdictionally ambiguous, or indeterminate network elements,
the work envisioned would be inimical to jurisdictional scope as
an administrative principle.

Absent the existence of mechanisms to ensure the jurisdictional
applicability of jurisdictionally scoped policy assertions on
jurisdictionally ambiguous, or indeterminate instances of communication,
the work envisioned would be inimical to jurisdictional scope as 
an administrative principle.

It is difficult to distinguish the issue of mechanisms and policy
which has no boundedness properties here, from other "management"
mechanisms in the routing problem area which are not constrained
by administrative or routing domains as administrative principles.
  
If the question is restated in a form specific to jurisdictionally
determinate intermediate elements (fixed-line networks), or to the
equivalent for end-to-end instances of communication (fixed-line in
a single jurisdiction), then these conclusions are inapplicable.

Jurisdictionally specific issues, like cost-recovery specific issues,
are outside the scope of the IETF, though their mediation, like work
on settlements, may not be.

Question #2

  "what should the IETF's position be on informational documents that
  explain how to perform message or data-stream interception without
  protocol modifications".

Unchanged from the present position, which is content independent and
cognizant of the utility of flow analysis for research and operational
practice.

End Note

I have not been able to identity an interest in the subject within the
operational Indian telecommunications or Federal Indian Law communities.
These service some of the nearly 1,000 distinct jurisdictions in North
America.

Cheers,
Eric

_______________________________________________
raven mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven

---

From: "Brett Wooldridge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:47:55 -0600

Let me see if I can translate this, especially for our
foreign friends.  In the future, Eric, it would help to
take your reading audience into consideration.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Eric Brunner <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 10:50 AM
Subject: [Raven] Jurisdictionally scoped policy, limit problem (mobile & e2e)

> activities").

[The proposed changes in the protocol are asserted to be due to specific
 legal requirements of one or more countries (jurisdictions).]

> The jurisdictional applicability (JA) of a jurisdictionally scoped policy
> (JSP) when applied to stationary network elements which supply transit
> services (routers) is presumed.  The JA of a JSP when

[The IETF makes the erroneous assumption that because traffic passes
 through a router in once jurisdiction (A), even if it originates and terminates
 in other jurisdictions (B and C), that the laws of that jurisdiction (A) can be
 applied to the parties on either end (in jurisdictions B and C).]
 
> locality properties (mobility or high-seas, respectively).

[The jurisdiction of a given country over a given "network element" (router)
 is sometimes ambiguous.  What about something like a mobile router,
 say one on a ship at sea?]

> The problem of spatial association (jurisdiction) to ip addressability
> (capability to apply an NMS originating polity assertion) is not yet
> attempted by the IETF.

[The IETF is not currently proposing any method by which a given IP's
 jurisdiction can be determined.]

> to policy interests.

[Clear enough, but further: Connections originating in one location and
 terminating in another, raise questions at to which location has
 jurisdiction -- some have said that the connection is supra-jurisdictional
 (above anyones jurisdiction) which creates problems for those
 defining policies.]

> The problem of transitive jurisdictional closure,  hence of jurisdictional
> applicability, to instances of communication which are jurisdictionally
> ambiguous, or indeterminate, is beyond the scope of the IETF.

[A tautology: The problem of determining the applicability of the 
 laws of a given jurisdiction, when the locations involved in the comminications
 are trans-jurisdictional, is beyond the scope of the IETF.]

{This was a completely unnecessary statement, and in the mind of this
 translator, are the result of the author enjoying the sound of his own
 voice.}

> an administrative principle.

{More wanking.  Self-contradictory.  I'll translate it literally, so you can see.}

[The short translation: Without the capability determine the jurisdiction
 over a network element (router) when the jurisdiction is ambiguous, the
 IETF cannot devise a protocol cabable of satisfying any given wiretap
 policy]

{This is bogus, because, if you can determine the jurisdiction over a
 network element, then the jurisdiction is not ambiguous.  But basically
 what Eric intended, I think, was that until governements come to an
 agreement about how to resolve jurisdictional disputes over internet
 traffic, there is no point engineering a protocol to support the laws of
 any given jurisdiction.}

{More wanking deleted, whose content and jist are largely 
 inconsequential to this discussion.}

Brett Wooldridge