Subject: [Raven] Re: [Raven][European] lawful interception of telecommunications

From: "Richard Payne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:12:13 -0500

ch*fr*n wrote:

>There was almost no discussion about it in December last
>year when the law according to
>
>http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1996/en_496Y1104_01.html
>
>was put in place. All parties in parliament where behind it.
>
>"Enfopol" is a working group document, a proposal, nothing
>more. It was even a stupid proposal if I understand well.

A couple of comments:

1) The document for which you give the URL _is_ Enfopol 98, which the EU has
now backed away from. If it was just a proposal, how come it's on the EU
website as a Council resolution? (Note, not the same as a national law). If,
on the other hand, it was a stupid proposal, does it then follow that the
Dutch law implementing it is stupid, or did it get (I hope) smarter in
translation?

2) I live in a parliamentary democracy too. The phrases "almost no
discussion about it" and "All parties in parliament were behind it" ought to
set off a few alarm bells. They tend to mean "we don't want the voters to
worry their little heads about it" or "the fix is in". This is standard
operating procedure, for example, if some nice quiet raises for Members of
Parliament are in order.

Richard Payne

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

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 23:42:44 +0100

On 9 Nov 99, at 17:12, Richard Payne wrote:

> now backed away from.

Please give me a source within the EU that states so. I 
pointed you at the fact that december 1998 the law 
according to the requirement came effective here so there 
seems little discussion left I think...

> If it was just a proposal, how come it's on the EU
> website as a Council resolution? (Note, not the same as a national law).

As I explained, council resolutions have to be implemented 
in laws in the EU countries, within a certain amount of 
time (2 years if I'm right).

..
 
> set off a few alarm bells.

I know what you mean.

> They tend to mean "we don't want the voters to worry
> their little heads about it" or "the fix is in". This is
> standard operating procedure, for example, if some nice
> quiet raises for Members of Parliament are in order. 

I understand. All not the case.

The rationale behind it is simple:

  A responsible government cannot allow places where
  criminal organizations can effectivly hide. 

This stopped discussions in parliament, also responsible 
for governing the country, and all parties agreed upon the 
law.

+++chefren

= =
ii.nl ontwerpt, bouwt én onderhoudt websites
100 Euro aanbrengpremie: http://www.ii.nl/premie

---

From: Gus Hosein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 23:15:34 +0000

>seems little discussion left I think...

You are correct that there is little discussion left, but not in the way 
you thought.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000252694626383&rtmo=lSbobFbt&atmo=99999999
&pg=/et/99/4/22/ecntap22.html (registration is required, but it is still there)

MEPs reject email tapping plan
==============================
By Annamarie Cumiskey

ENFOPOL 98, a European Union initiative to tap telephone conversations,
email and faxes, has been rejected outright by Euro-MPs who see it as an
invasion of privacy.

The European Parliament's civil liberties committee voted on Tuesday to
throw out the initiative which was developed in secret by EU justice
ministers. The draft initiative only came to light in January, when it was
leaked to a German Internet magazine, causing uproar in the parliament
because MEPs had not been consulted.

Enfopol 98, or the "Convention on mutual assistance in legal matters", gives
national governments wide-ranging powers to intercept communications without
a court order, in order to combat "serious crime".

The measure responds to a growing fear in the national capitals that
international drug rings and terrorists are using the Internet to
communicate secretly, but a "serious crime" is not defined.

"Anybody or any company involved in any crime can be tapped," said Tony
Bunyan, director of Statewatch, the British civil liberties group.

Internet service providers would have to give the police the name, address
and other details of subscribers under suspicion. Satellite phone companies
would also be expected to track suspects as they travel.

Europe's Internet lobbyists claim that while "tapping" may work for
telephone calls, it is not suitable for email, which could be intercepted
without an individual's knowledge. Letters can be opened only with a court
order.

The European Parliament is expected to vote against the initiative again in
Strasbourg next month. EU justice ministers, however, can ignore the
parliament's opinion on security issues.

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:47:19 +0100

> parliament's opinion on security issues.

And what did they vote? Did it reject the earlier 
resolution? Is there a resolution that urges for example 
The Netherlands to withdraw the law according to the 
earlier resolution?

+++chefren

= =