Subject: RE: [Raven] Which act says you must?

From: narellec <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:46:57 +1100

Ed Stone wrote:
>>Ed wrote:
>> >>Some people want standards for tapping so their costs to
>> >>comply to laws are as low as possible.
>> >
>> >Please provide a quotation of the law that you have in mind... What law?
>> >What country? Please.... a quote of that law???

My reading of this line is that you wanted to know which laws required
tapping.

>>See the full text of the Australian Acts at:
>>
>>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1979350/index.html
>>
>>Subsequent modifications under the Telecommunications Act 1999 clarify
things
>>somewhat...
>>
>>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/
>>
>>
>>Commentary
>>http://www2.austlii.edu.au/itlaw/articles/Waters_Interception.html
>>
>>You see? We have to. Legal compliance is an obligation.

>No, I don't see. Would you please provide the specific quotes of those laws
>which you allege require that IP protocols be altered.

That is not what I allege. I assert that Australian laws require
interception of all traffic required for the purposes of properly
authorised law enforcement agencies. This is a requirement of
holding a carrier's license, and is also required from ISPs.

Some of the specifics...

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1997 - SECT 329

Nature of an interception capability plan

      (1)An interception capability plan ("IC plan") of a carrier or nominated
carriage service provider is a written instrument setting out:

            (a)a statement of the policies of the carrier or provider in
relation to interception generally and of its strategies for compliance with
its legal obligation to provide interception capabilities in relation to
carriage services that involve, or will involve, the use of a controlled
network, or controlled facility, of the carrier or provider; and
            (b)a statement of any relevant developments in the business of the
carrier or provider that are proposed and that, if implemented, is likely to
affect those interception capabilities, within the period of 5 years from the
start of the plan; and
            (c)a list of employees of the carrier or provider with
responsibility for interception and other relevant matters; and
            (d)a description of the strategies of the carrier or provider for
minimising long term costs associated with interception; and
            (e)any other matters determined by the Minister to be relevant to
the IC plan.

      (2)For the purposes of paragraph (1)(e), a determination by the Minister
that a matter is a relevant matter:

            (a)must be made by written instrument; and
            (b)is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of
the "Acts Interpretation Act 1901".

      (3)On receipt by it of an IC plan of a carrier or nominated carriage
service provider, the ACA, the agency co-ordinator and each agency that
receives the plan:

            (a)must treat the plan as confidential; and
            (b)must ensure that it is not disclosed to any person or body not
referred to in this subsection without the written permission of the carrier
or provider.

I have no further comment to make. For reasons which should be clear above.

Narelle

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

---

From: Ed Stone <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:21:09 -0500

>My reading of this line is that you wanted to know which laws required

No, please provide a quotation of the law that requires IETF to modify 
protocols, not the url of some body of law or "directives".... What country?

>holding a carrier's license, and is also required from ISPs.

Nice, but this is not a citation (quotation) of any law that requires 
modification of protocols by IETF. But even again, shall IETF honor 
Australian law but not Myanmar law? EU directives but not Iraqi law? Which 
nation's laws shall be binding on IETF to cause it to modify protocols?

>referred to in this subsection without the written permission of the carrier

If you see in that ANY requirement to modify protocols, please point it 
out. I do not see any such requirement in Australian law. Possibly there is 
a Chinese law?

>I have no further comment to make. For reasons which should be clear above.

Yes, clear to me.
--
--------------------------
Ed Stone
[email-masked]
--------------------------