Subject: Re: [Raven] Fly away, raven

From: "Richard Payne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:34:16 -0500

Brian Rosen wrote:

> C'mon, we live in the real world, and we sometimes have to
> support things that aren't "nice".  Legal Intercept is a law,
> a very old law.  It may be that it should be abolished.  Talk to
> your congressperson.  Until the law changes, we (vendors and
> carriers) are required to meet its terms.  The issue doesn't
> rise to the level where civil disobedience is appropriate.

which raises a number of questions:

0) Is 'things that aren't "nice"' a euphemism for 'things that I know darn
well are wrong'?

1) Does 'legal intercept' here refer to CALEA, which was the first law to
place the onus on telecoms to use wiretap-friendly equipment? If so, does a
law passed by Congress by voice vote in the middle of the night (gotta love
that accountability to the voters) in 1994 count as "a very old law"?

2) (Related to 1) Is it proven that CALEA applies to the Internet? If so, is
the reasoning supporting this conclusion generally available? If not, what
is the legal authority for making people build security holes into their
protocols?

3) If I'm not an American, which congressperson should I talk to about this?

4) (Related to 4) If I'm not an American vendor or carrier, would I be
civilly disobedient if I were to note that CALEA doesn't apply to me in any
case?

Just wondering...

Richard Payne

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

---

From: Paul Ferguson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 18:33:11 -0500

At 04:34 PM 11/01/1999 -0500, Richard Payne wrote:

>2) (Related to 1) Is it proven that CALEA applies to the Internet?

Answer: As specifically stated in the current CALEA draft, no.

However, this does not include voice traffic, so it stands to reason
that when we are talking about VoIP, then yes, it will be included
within the CALEA contexts.

- paul