Subject: Re: [Raven] Thoughts of IESG and IAB members on Raven

From: "Richard Payne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 12:54:48 -0500

You wrote:

> It's an academic/legal exercise to debate whether any particular
> law applies to any particular carrier, in any particular
> circumstance.  The point is that the carriers believe that
> they have to support LI, and therefore there is a requirement
> of the equipment to support LI.  Since carriers want
> interoperable equipment, that translates to a requirement in
> some protocols.

The point of my original question is to find out why the carriers believe
this "requirement" applies to the Internet, and what, exactly, they think
"requirement" and "support" mean. Given, for example, that:

- CALEA exempted information services,

- the FCC is facing multiple court challenges right now on its August order
for stepping beyond CALEA, and

- the improbability that any of this applies to the IETF under any theory,

it seems reasonable for the IETF to try to find out what the current legal
status is in the U.S. and other countries. I'm not a lawyer, you're not a
lawyer, but if someone tells you to spend time and effort to implement a
"legally required" feature, it makes sense to find out what that really
means before rushing to do what you _think_ it means.

If there's no clear legal requirement to build in specific features for law
enforcement, it seems clear that most of the people who've expressed
opinions (not all) would prefer that it not be done. I suspect you may be in
this category yourself.

Richard Payne

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

---

From: Ed Stone <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 13:42:01 -0500

>opinions (not all) would prefer that it not be done. I suspect you may be in

I agree. But alternatively, if this interest in modifying or creating 
protocols to facilitate wiretapping is not born in "legal" requirements, 
nor is an interest conveyed to IETF/IESG/IAB by governments (in the form of 
laws, of course, rather than extra-legal whispers), and is rather a request 
of non-governmental units, without basis in law, then might we learn from 
those requesting it details as to the following:

1. What problem exists, and for whom, that new or modified protocols would 
be aimed at solving? Be specific.

2. Wouldn't we reasonably expect that those who need a wiretapping problem 
solved via new or modifed protocols, would provide a clear and complete 
technical statement of the problem they wish to have solved?

3. Since we are to believe that the request for new or modified protocols 
is not from governments, are we to assume that they are fully satisfied 
with current protocols, with regard to wiretapping?

I sense that the IETF membership would benefit, on a technical basis at 
least, if the blankets could be removed from the definition of the 
"problem" for which new or modified protocols are alleged to be the answer. 
What is the problem, and who has it, since we are led to believe that 
governments (law enforcement, et al) are not motiviating this issue?

--
--------------------------
Ed Stone
[email-masked]
--------------------------

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 00:23:19 +0100

On 6 Dec 99, at 12:54, Richard Payne wrote:

> "requirement" and "support" mean.

..

> If there's no clear legal requirement to build in specific features for
> law enforcement, it seems clear that most of the people who've expressed
> opinions (not all) would prefer that it not be done. I suspect you may be
> in this category yourself.

Dutch law states: ALL communication services provided for 
others. And that's according to an EU requirement 
(directive) that has not met serious problems from the EU 
members. Yes there are a lot of people crying about it but 
implementation will be there in all countries, one after 
another and before a point in time specified by another 
other EU requirement/directive.

+++chefren