Subject: [Raven] Enfopol Redux

From: "Richard Payne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:16:27 -0500

You might want to read http://cryptome.org/enfopol-law.htm as providing the
most up to date information on this topic. It appears that the
"requirements" are back as part of a legal aid convention (for which member
states have yet to pass enabling legislation), and that they would in
general (with an Iridium exception) operate within the constraints of
national law, _not_ overriding them.

I wonder if the European parliament will take another kick at this? They
didn't like the previous incarnation, as Gus Hosein has pointed out.

In any case, it is clearly incorrect to assert that the Enfopol 98
"requirements" are law throughout the EU. Maybe in the Netherlands...

Richard Payne

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

---

From: Gus Hosein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:07:19 +0000

>"requirements" are law throughout the EU. Maybe in the Netherlands...

What I find quite odd, is in a cryptic statement in the October 12, 1999 article by the Register (that Richard gave as a link)...
<Quote>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991012-000015.html
According to senior sources close to the Finnish presidency of the EU, the
European Council wants to redraft completely the text for the European
recommendation on the Interception of Internet traffic, known as Enfopol.

Britain and the Netherlands, alongside industry bodies such as the European
Internet Services Providers Association (EuroISPA), have been lobbying for
some time to get the draft dropped.
</Quote>

The Netherlands?  Britain?  Two unlikely proponents considering how Enfopol actually arose in the first place.

gus.